Petitioner approached the High Court with an alternate remedy available. The Court declined to hear merits and disposed of the Writ Petition allowing the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy, keeping all contentions open without awarding costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
k 1/1 85 wp 1900.22 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1900 OF 2022
Vinayak Pandharinath Idate V/S
....Petitioner
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 08 MARCH 2023.
P.C.:
sought to canvass submissions on merits. We are not inclined to continue the same.
alternate remedy. All contentions are kept open. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed bySUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2023.03.10 10:59:29 +0530
1/1
katkam
Vinayak Pandharinath Idate
State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
