Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Balaji Shamrao Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 September, 2021

Author: Mangesh S. Patil

Bench: Dipankar Datta, Mangesh S. Patil

                                            1                       wp712-17.odt




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2017


Balaji Shamrao Gaikwad                                           .. PETITIONER

          VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra
and others                                                       ..RESPONDENTS

                        .....

Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 4.

                        .....
                                     CORAM :        DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                                    MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
                                     DATE       :   30/09/2021

P.C. :-


1]        Petitioner had earlier moved W.P. No.887 of 1995 and W.P. No.5249 of

2006. These two writ petitions were disposed of as withdrawn pursuant to orders dated 5th February, 2004 of a learned Single Judge and 27 th July, 2006 of a coordinate Bench, respectively. Both these orders refer to a Government Resolution dated 24th November 2000 and grants liberty to the petitioner to persuade the authorities to act in terms thereof.

2] Although Government advocates representing the State were present on ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2021 07:03:48 ::: 2 wp712-17.odt both occasions, it was not brought to the notice of the Courts that the Government Resolution dated 24th November, 2000 was superseded by Government Resolution dated 24th April, 2001. Since the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ petitions on the premise that the Government Resolution dated 24th November, 2000 would guide his fate and the Court was not informed of its supersession by the subsequent Government Resolution dated 24th April, 2001, we are inclined to entertain the writ petition. 3] However, it appears that the Government Resolution dated 24 th April, 2001 is in vernacular. Parties shall endeavour to place before the Court the exact English translation of the aforesaid two Government Resolutions.

4]      Stand over for two weeks.




        [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]                              [CHIEF JUSTICE]

umg/




       ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2021 07:03:48 :::