Hai Mujahid Ekbal Abdul Siddiqui vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15944 Bom

                                      1                 903-WP.950-20.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      903 WRIT PETITION NO.950 OF 2020

                 HAI MUJAHID EKBAL ABDUL SIDDIQUI
                                  VERSUS
              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                     ...
              Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chavan Sudhir K.
             AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. B. Yawalkar.
           Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. U. B. Bondar.
                                    ...

                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 17.11.2021

PER COURT :-

1. This petition has been decided by the judgment dated

07.10.2021 and is on board today with regard to the

compliance of the direction that the petitioner shall deposit

Rs.25,000/-, on or before 15.11.2021.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has moved a

praecipe to indicate that the retirement date mentioned in

paragraph 4(c) should read as "31.01.2022". We accept the

said statement. Paragraph No.4(c) be accordingly corrected

and the figure "2024" shall be replaced by "31.01.2022".

2 903-WP.950-20.odt

3. He then points out that in paragraph No.6, in the third

line, it is mentioned that the petitioner had almost five years

for retirement. He actually had two years and three months

for retirement. As such, the said words "almost five years for

retirement" in paragraph No.6 be replaced by the words

"almost two years and three months for retirement".

Corrected copy be uploaded.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner prays for one

week time as regards the compliance to be done by the

petitioner.

5. Stand over to 24.11.2021 for "passing orders".

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

...

vmk/-