Writ Petition No. 935 of 2007 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. B.R.warma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, AGP, for respondent No.1. Mr. D.S.Bagul, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ----- Coram : Naresh H. Patil and N. D. Deshpande, JJ. Date : 12th June, 2009. PER COURT : Heard. 2 In view of alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under the provisions of 267A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner may resort to the same. In case any delay occurs for resorting to such remedy, the authority may consider the same while considering the application for condonation of delay in view of pendency of writ petition in this Court. 3 Petition is accordingly disposed of. [ N. D. Deshpande, J. ] [ Naresh H. Patil, J. ] pcr/wp935.07
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Jun 2009.
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.