Dismissed

Mangalchand Khivraj Chavel v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Sept 2014WP/801/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed two writ petitions as infructuous and discharged the rule. The petition against the State was dismissed due to a death in the family, while the other was found devoid of merit due to prevailing regulations making the sought license unobtainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous, and the rule discharged.

Mangalchand Khivraj Chavel Vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 5170 OF 2000

¶3

Shaikh Mohammed s/o. Shaikh Abdul Mujawar..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶6

Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, AGP for respondent/State.
Mrs.C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for R-2.

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 801 OF 1999

¶9

Mangalchand Chavel..Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶12

Mrs.C.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, AGP for respondent/State.

¶13

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &

¶14

A.I.S. CHEEMA,JJ.
DATED :04.09.2014

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

1.This petition is now infructuous because of the
prevailing situation and rules & regulations.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions
that despite the impugned order, respondent - Mangalchand

¶17

could not start saw mill on the place, which he proposed
to start. In addition to this, learned Counsel for the
petitioner on instructions informs that respondent –
Mangalchand is dead. On the face of it, the purpose of
filing this petition seems to be over. If at all
Mangalchand or anyone claiming through him would want to
start saw mill, such application would be considered on
merits and the impugned permission given to Malgalchand
would not be of their help. The writ petition stands
disposed of.

¶18

2.Since the petitioner in W.P. No.801 of 1999 is
reported to be dead, the petition stands dismissed as
infructuous.

¶19

3.In both the writ petitions, rule stands
discharged.

¶20

snk /2014/SEP14/wp5170.00

Mangalchand Khivraj Chavel v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangalchand Khivraj Chavel v. State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Pradeep Vitthalrao More Vs Chairman Bharat Shikshan Sanstha Omerga and Ors.

Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Namdeo Karbhari Kankarale and Ors.

Gopal Ramu Jangale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Neelawatibai Janardhan Bokan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhairavnath Nisag Mandal Vs Marathwada Agricultural University Parbhani and Ors.