The petitioner sought writ relief citing threats and a notice. The court found no cause of action as the petitioners name did not appear in the notice and she alleged no knowledge of the threatening persons, ordering disposal.
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.
2024:BHC-AUG:4542-DB
959.24wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 WRIT PETITION NO. 959 OF 2024
ANISA BEGUM MOHAMMAD YUNUS QURESHI VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Mr R. C. Bramhankar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr R. S. Wani, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 3
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 28th February, 2024
PER COURT:
having been threatened by some persons. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner does not know these persons. As such, we are of the view that the Petitioner should have filed a first information report against all such persons, who are threatening her.
959.24wp (2)
number mentioned also does not belong to the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the notice does not affect her.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
Signed by: Sachin J Kulkarni Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/03/2024 19:17:51
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition学生会 provide cause of action given the petitioner's claim of no involvement in the cited notice and lack of knowledge of threatening persons.
Anisa Begum Mohammad Yunus Qureshi
The State of Maharashtra
Ravindra V. Ghuge
R. M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
