Held the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous because the petition counsel admitted the reliefs were rendered moot due to the passage of time and monsoon constraints.
Petition dismissed as infructuous with directions to decide on refund application if filed by respondent no.4.
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 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1324 OF 2009
Maroti Narayanrao Pisal
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Mah. & ors.
..RESPONDENTS
Mr A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. For respondent – State; Mr G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for respondent no.4.
CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 11th June, 2009
PER COURT :
Mr A.S. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that the reliefs which the petitioner has sought for in this petition have been rendered infructuous on account of passage of time. The petitioner had filed this petition challenging the acceptance of bid of respondent no.4 in respect of the auctioning of the sand spot. Order of status quo came to be passed by this Court some time in first week of March, 2009. On account of the imminent onset of the monsoon the respondent no.4 would not be able to execute the contract. In the light of that, therefore, it is stated that the relief which is prayed for by the petitioner has become infructuous. Learned AGP
2
states that after conclusion of the monsoon steps in accordance with law would be initiated for auctioning of the sand spot. In the light of that statement this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. It is needless to state that since respondent no.4, despite depositing 25% of the bid amount has not been able to excavate the sand, is entitled to apply to the respondents for refund of the amount deposited by him. In the event such an application is filed by respondent no.4, the authorities shall decide it in accordance with law. Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid directions.
amj/wp1324.09
Maroti Narayanrao Pisal
The State of Maharashtra
P. V. Hardas
R. K. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court