SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

G.B.PATTANAIK, G.N.RAY
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain – Appellant
Versus
Pandey Ajay Bhushan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

G.N.-Ray, J - Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated September 10, 1996 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 414 of 1993 and Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 1994 is impugned in these appeals. It will be appropriate at this stage to indicate in brief the background facts:

(a) The appellant, at material point of time, was the President of the Jalgaon Municipality. The said Jalgaon Municipality took a decision to demolish the unauthorised encroachment (tapri). On the basis of such decision of the Municipality, the unit of anti Encroachment Department of Municipality had gone to demolish the unauthorised encroached construction on July 3, 1993. One Shri Sita Ram @ Baban Baheti was also one of the Councilors of Jalgaon Municipality. The said Councilor however, remained present at the site and tried to stop the attempt of the Municipality to demolish the unauthorised tapri. The respondent No.1 Shri Pandey Ajay Bhushan, was Collector and District Magistrate of Jalgaon and respondent No.2 Shri Dilip G. Shrirao, was Additional Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, respondent No. 3, Shri Prakash Mahaj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top