STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PADMAKAR BALKRISHNA SAMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the benefit of perusing the erudite and exhaustive judgment prepared for the purposes of this appeal by my brother Rele. He has dealt with all the points arising in the appeal as also with the arguments advanced and authorities cited by the counsel arrayed for the respective patties at the Bar. Whilst I agree broadly with the ultimate conclusions reached, there are certain nuances, intermediate steps, and not so pertinent observations, in my view, with which 1 am unable to agree with my brother. Accordingly, 1 propose to give a separate judgment making it clear that on all conclusions not touched by me, I must be taken to have concurred fully with my brother. For the purpose of this separate judgment, as I have made it clear, 1 propose to restrict my discussion only to one of the important points, according to the, which arises in this appeal. The other points may be mentioned in passing, if at all.

(2.) THIS is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decision of the learned single Judge disposing of substantially in favour of the petitioners, a writ application or petition filed on the original side of the High Court. For the sake of clarity since the two appellants before us are the original respondents in the petition, 1 shall refer to them as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and refer to the contesting respondents in the appeal as the petitioners.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the legal submissions it will become necessary to refer to the case as propounded in the pleadings and thereafter to consider as to whether the same has been substantiated and to what extent.