✦ Bombay High Court · 27 Mar 2012

Judgment · High Court · 2012

Judgment

Mr. H.V. Tungar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.R. Shaikh, AGP for respondents. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 27TH MARCH, 2012. ER COURT :- 1] Since no order prejudicial to the interest of the respondent No.3 is being passed, requirement of notice to the said respondent is waived. 2] The limited relief claimed in the petition is for a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the ROR File No. 375 of 2009 within a stipulated period. 3] Taking into consideration the fact that the said file is pending since 1995, we direct respondent No.2 to decide the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from today. Writ petition stands disposed of. [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-

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. 2588 of 2012). ← Search more judgments