In a writ petition, the petitioner did not appear. The respondent's counsel stated the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution.
The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
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.
vss
wp.990.2012.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.990 OF 2012
Pravin Vasant Ransure
... Petitioner
Vs.
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. .... Respondents
None for the Petitioner
Mr.S.R. Nargolkar a/w Aumkar Joshi for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Resp. Nos.4 to 7
CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 2, 2012
P.C.:
Management points out that this petition has become infructuous in
view of the subsequent developments. Perhaps that is the reason
why the petitioner is not present.
2. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed for non-
prosecution.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)
1 of 1
Pravin Vasant Ransure
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
A.M. KHANWILKAR
N.M. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
