Writ petition disposed of as counsel submitted that subsequent events had served the cause for prosecuting the petition; no substantive adjudication.
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.
33 WP-1740-24.doc
BDP-SPS-
BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1740 OF 2024
Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2024.04.17 11:20:46 +0530
M/s. Mahalaxmi Sand Crusher Through Proprietor
V/s
…. Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….. Respondents.
Mr. Surel Shah, Advocate a/w Mr. Sachin Hande a/w Ms. Tanvi Phatak a/w Mr. Sandip Khandekar, Advocates for the Petitioners Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. G.P. with Mrs. Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Jitendra Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (MPCB) Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b Little & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE: 16th APRIL, 2024
P.C.:-
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of subsequent events the cause for prosecuting the writ petition stands served. Accordingly writ petition is disposed of.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.]
1/1
M/s. Mahalaxmi Sand Crusher Through Proprietor
The State of Maharashtra
A.S. Chandurkar
Jitendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
