✦ Bombay High Court · 18 Nov 2009

Rangrao Ganpati Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 2711 of 2009D B BHOSALE

Case at a glance

Outcome

Withdrawn

The petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty, as

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2711 OF 2009 Rangrao Ganpati Bhosale .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.V.B.Rajure, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.S.S.Bhende, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

Mr.Rajure, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Division Bench for redressal of their grievance. The learned AGP has no objection for granting such liberty.

Operative part

3.

The petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty, as

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 18 Nov 2009. The bench was D B BHOSALE.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 2711 of 2009). ← Search more judgments