Dismissed

Ashok Sarjerao Magar and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2013WP/542/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed as against respondent no. 8 following adjournment due to lack of instructions from petitioner's counsel. Court found grievances regarding verification of works already redressed by action against guilty officers.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to petitioners to file other steps in law; dismissal recorded specifically against respondent no. 8.

Ashok Sarjerao Magar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 542 of 2008

¶4

Ashok s/o. Sarjerao Magar, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Hivarkhed, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad, and another. .. Petitioners.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and 8 others. .. Respondents.

¶7

Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr.S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Mr. V.D. Sonawane, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶10

Respondent nos.5 to 7 served (Absent).

¶11

Petition dismissed as against respondent no.8.

¶12

Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.9.

¶13

(2)

¶14

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER 2013

¶16

COURT'S ORDER :

¶17

Adv. Mr. S.M. Godsay for the petitioner is stated to be not available. Adv. Mr. V.C. Patil mentions matter for adjournment. However, he states that he has no instructions to argue the matter.

¶18

We have heard Adv. Mr. V.D. Sonawane for respondent nos.1 to 4. Perused affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the said respondents. The affidavit is filed on 12-12-2011 and there is no counter filed by the present petitioner.

¶19

The petitioners have prayed for holding of inquiry and for verification of works undertaken. They also seek registration of criminal offence against erring persons.

¶20

In reply affidavit, respondent nos.1 to 4 have pointed out that action is taken against the officers found guilty.

¶21

In this situation, we find that the grievance as made in prayer clauses "B" and "C" is already redressed.

¶22

(3)

¶23

With liberty to the petitioners to take such other steps as are

¶24

open to them in law, we dispose of the present petition. No costs.

¶25

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

bgp/wp542

Ashok Sarjerao Magar and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Sarjerao Magar and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tatyaba Babasaheb Ghogre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Khandu Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Waman Trimbak Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gorakhnath Devidas Wadekar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ashok Wamanrao Bankar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhatu Shankar Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.