Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21371 (BOM)

RUPALI YASHWANT THAKUR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

WP/5030/2006 · 2026-01-13

Shri M S Karnik, Shri S M Modak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

10.wp.5030,5029&5094.06 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [1]     WRIT PETITION NO.5030 OF 2006 Rupali Yashwant Thakur. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. WITH [2]     WRIT PETITION NO.5029  OF 2006 Sangita Bhikaji Masage. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. WITH [3]     WRIT PETITION NO.5094 OF 2008 Santosh Baburao Maske. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.R.K. Mendadkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.A.   Gangal,   Advocate   with   Mr.S.S.   Deshmukh   and   Ashok Gade, Advocates for the respondent. .... CORAM :  D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED   :  30TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:­ 10.wp.5030,5029&5094.06 2 1. Heard learned Counsel  for  both  the  sides.   Perused the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of  Shilpa Vishnu Thakur  vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.  reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995. 2. The  learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the facts and law involved in the present Petitions are similar to the facts and law involved in Writ Petition No. 5028   of   2006.     Statement   is   accepted.   In   view   of   this statement, for the reasons given in our order dated 30th November, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.5028 of 2006, the present Writ Petitions are also rejected. 3. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the operation of the interim order is extended for a period of eight weeks. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)