Dismissed

Vishwesh D. Kulkarni and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2010WP/2775/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition regarding PGM-CET examination admissions as infructuous. The court noted that while the petitioners had an option to either do rural service or pay a sum, they failed to exercise this option, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it had become infructuous by passage of time due to the petitioners failing to exercise the option to do rural service or pay the demanded sum.

Vishwesh D. Kulkarni and 2 Ors. Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2010)

WP.2775.2006

mst

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2775 OF 2006

¶6

Vishwesh D. Kulkarni and others versus State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

Petitioners

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Ashish Rao i/by M.M.Vashi for petitioners. L.T.S.Satelkar, AGP for respondents.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.

¶11

DATE : 16^th November 2010

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

Today, when the matter is called out, the learned advocate for the petitioners states that he does not have any papers and that the letters addressed to the petitioners have been returned unserved.

¶14

The petition was filed in the year 2006 for seeking directions against the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to appear for PGM-CET examination to be held in January-February 2007 and other PGM-CET examination to be conducted thereafter. The petitioners also seek a direction to issue NOC to the students who got admissions in all India quota of PGM seats.

¶15

While admitting the petition on 28th August 2006, this Court had made it clear that subject to final orders in the petition, it was open to the petitioners and those similarly situated either to do rural service for the period from 15th September 2006 to 15th January 2007 or to pay the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh. This Court also directed the respondents to permit

WP.2775.2006

mst

those petitioners, who wish to join the rural medical service, to give option upto 8th September 2006. The matter was directed to be placed for final hearing on 11th October 2006.

¶20

It appears that no attempt thereafter has been made to get this matter heard finally.

¶21

Having regard to the fact that the petitioners were interested in appearing at the PGM-CET examination and other examinations which were to be held in January-February 2007 and that the impediment in the petitioners' appearance in the examinations was sought to be removed by giving the petitioners' an option either to do the rural service for four months or to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh, in our view, nothing further is required to be done in the matter and more particularly when the learned advocate for the petitioners is not in a position to state as to in what manner the petitioners' have exercised the option offered to them vide order dated 28th August 2006.

¶22

In view of the above, we see no reason to keep this petition pending. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground that the petition has become infructuous by passage of time. Rule is discharged.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

S.J.KATHAWALLA J.

Vishwesh D. Kulkarni and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwesh D. Kulkarni and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Katiyar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yerala Medical Trust and Research Centre and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Seelwanti L.Vaswani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vs Mah.Medical Council and Ors.

Satyavan Keshav Manjrekar and Anr. Vs Revenue Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai and 11 Ors.

Association of Management of Medical and Dental Colleges Vs the State of Maharashtra