Surekha v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. We accordingly dismiss this writ petition as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The authorities before whom the petitioner may file appropriate proceedings shall take into consideration the period of pendency of this writ petition from 24.10.2008 till today. No costs. ( R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) (…
Judgment
Shri R.S.Shejule, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3 Shri A.M.Hajare, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 2nd July 2009 PER COURT :
Learned Counsel for the respondents state that an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 267A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 and as the petitioner has not availed the said remedy, this writ petition may not be entertained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondents in respect of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy states that he may be 2 permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the alternate remedy available to the petitioner in law.
We accordingly dismiss this writ petition as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The authorities before whom the petitioner may file appropriate proceedings shall take into consideration the period of pendency of this writ petition from 24.10.2008 till today. No costs. ( R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/7241.08wp
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 — s. 267A.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Jul 2009. The bench was P V HARDAS, R K DESHPANDE.
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.