The petitioners failed to provide further instructions regarding the prosecution of the writ petition. Relying on this lack of interest, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, discharged the Rule and disposed of the writ petition for want of 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.
WP2379-97
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2379/1997
(JAISA RAHA JOGARANA & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 21, 2014.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have not given further instructions with regard to the prosecution of the present writ petition.
In view of the aforesaid statement, it appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of for want of prosecution. No costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
Jaisa Raha Jogarana and Others
State of Maharashtra
Vasanti A. Naik
A.S. Chandurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
