this writ is enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande . The Court stated that the writ of habeas corpus ... left the matter there.” In Naresh S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra , it was said that High Court’s judicial orders are open to being
Antulay v. R.S.Nayak and N.S.Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra , it has been observed that “when rule making power of judiciary
result of a Judgment of PA Inamdar and Ors. V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. In this judgment the court held that different states cannot
Court of India in case of A.A. Mulla v. State of Maharashtra and was observed that; Article 20 (2) would not be attracted
Constitution of India
371. Special provision with respect to the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the President ... order made with respect tothe State of Maharashtra or Gujarat, provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for- (a) the establishment of separate development
shall consist of the Governor, and (a) in the States of Bihar, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, two houses: (b) in other States, one House
establishment of separate development boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada, the rest of Maharashtra, Saurashtra, Kutch and the rest of Gujarat with the provision that a report
Section 107 in THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY-NINTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975
107. The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Maharashtra Act XXXII
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Re-enactment, Validation and Further Amendment) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra
that were passed by the States of Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil
