✦ Bombay High Court

Shaukat Bhilkansha Fakir v. The State of Maharashtra

Writ Petition No. 972 of 2010U D SALVI

Case at a glance

Bench
U D SALVI

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Permission is granted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to move an appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 before the appellate authority stipulated therein on or before 30-11-2011. The appellate authority under the said Act shall dispose off the…

Judgment

..... Shri A.B. Girase, Advocate holding for D.S. Bagul , Advocate for the petitioner Shri G.R. Ingole, APP for the respondent / State. ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 16 th November, 2011. PER COURT :

2.

Heard. Perused application and the record. It is submitted on instructions that the petitioner would avail alternative efficacious remedy under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and he would be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to prefer the said appeal.

3.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be preferring the said appeal before the 2

972.10 CWP concerned authority on or before 30-11-2011, and the authorities be directed to dispose off the said appeal within a reasonable period, preferably within two months, and also further prays that interim protection granted vide order dated 27-10-2010 in the present case be continued till the disposal of the said appeal by the authority.

4.

Permission is granted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to move an appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 before the appellate authority stipulated therein on or before 30-11-2011. The appellate authority under the said Act shall dispose off the said appeal within reasonable period preferably within two months from the presentation of the said appeal. Interim protection granted vide order dated 27-10-2010 in the present petition to continue till the disposal of the said appeal by the said authority. Criminal Writ Petition No. 972/2010 stands disposed off accordingly. . Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. SDM* November-11

( U.D. SALVI, J. )

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. 972 of 2010). ← Search more judgments