A writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner's counsel withdrew and no appearance was made to remove objections.
Writ petition dismissed 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.
1/1
wp3333.0 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3333 OF 2009
Santosh C. Rawat
-vs-
State of Maharashtra and others
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr.R.S.Parsodkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1, 3 4 and 5.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P. R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 10.10.2014.
Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that he has issued notice to the petitioner for engagement of another counsel, as he is withdrawing the vakalatnama . It is stated that it was informed to the petitioner that the matter would be fixed on 08/10/2014.
In view of the statements made in the pursis, the appearance of Shri Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner stands discharged.
Since none appears for the petitioner and since the office objections are not removed, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
Santosh C. Rawat
State of Maharashtra
Vasanti A. Naik
P. R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
