✦ Bombay High Court · 17 Jun 2003

NO. 186 OF 1999 Shri Justiniano Conceicao Rego, major, retired Government servant v. The State of Goa

Writ Petition No. 186 of 1999P V HARDAS, F I REBELLO

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

2.

Mr. Ramchand R. Shanke(since deceased) through his legal heirs: 2a. Smt. Savitri Ramchandra Shanke, major, widow; b. Shri Jagannath Ramchandra Shanke, major, son; c. Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Shanke, major, daughter-in-law; d. Shri Sunil Ramchandra Shanke, major, son; e. Mrs. Sunil Ramchandra Shanke, major, daughter-in-law; f. Shri Ratnakar Ramchandra Shanke, major, son; g. Mrs. Ratnakar Ramchandra Shanke, major, daughter-in-law; h. Shri Prakash Ramchandra Shanke, major, son; i. Miss Pramila Ramchandra Shanke, major, daughter; - 2 - j. Miss Meena Ramchandra Shanke, major, daughter; k. Miss Narmada Ramchandra Shanke, major, daughter. All c/o Shop No.40, New Market, Margao, Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. P. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the State. Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for Respondent No.2 absent. CORAM: F. I. REBELLO & P. V. HARDAS, JJ. DATED: 17TH JUNE, 2003. ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT(PER F.I.REBELLO,J.) ORAL JUDGMENT By the present Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 12 of the Goa Buildings(Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968. During the pendency of the Petition, by the Amendment Act known as the Goa Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control(Amendment) Bill, 2003 the part of the proviso which was challenged has been omitted. the matter as the Petition has become infructuous. In view of that, nothing further survives in - 3 - Petition is disposed as infructuous. to costs. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as F. I. REBELLO, J. P. V. HARDAS, J. RD.

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. 186 of 1999). ← Search more judgments