Petitioners in a writ petition were absent. The court treated this as a lack of desire to prosecute and disposed of the petition by discharging the rule.
Rule discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.238 OF 1997
The Chairman, Chinchani Tarapur Education Society, Thane and another ..Petitioners v/s. Shri Sopan Jagannath Ingale and another ..Respondents
None for the petitioners.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
A.S.BAGGA, JJ.
DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2006.
P.C.
The petitioners were earlier represented by Shri V.M.Kanade (now Judge of this court). After his elevation, court notice was issued to both the petitioners. Despite service, nobody appears for them. That shows that the petitioners are not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition.
No costs.
(R.M.LODHA, J.)
(A.S.BAGGA, J.)
The Chairman, Chinchani Tarapur Education Society, Thane and another
Shri Sopan Jagannath Ingale and another
R.M. LODHA
A.S. BAGGA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
