Application for recall of a bailable warrant issued against State officers. The warrant was recalled after the officers appeared in court, rendering the previous order unnecessary.
Bailable warrant issued against applicants recalled and civil application disposed of.
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.
ca345916.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3459 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10598 OF 2014
Chandrakant s/o Shivlal Gavade & another
Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.S.N.Rodge, advocate for applicants. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA, JJ. Date : 17th March, 2016
PER COURT:
This is an application for recall of bailable warrant issued against applicants i.e. Respondents No.5 & 6 in the writ petition. As a consequence of failure of the concerned officers to cause appearance in the matter, this Court directed issuance of bailable warrant by an order dated 02.02.2016.
It is pointed out by the applicants that in fact the Education Officer as well as Chief Executive Officer are represented. However, appearance purshis for Respondents No.5 & 6 was not presented, as a result of which, bailable warrant came to be issued.
Since concerned Respondents have caused appearance in the matter, we do not deem it necessary to serve bailable warrant for securing presence of concerned officers before the Court. Hence, order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 02.02.2016 stands recalled.
Civil Application stands disposed of.
P.R.BORA R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE
Chandrakant s/o Shivlal Gavade & another
State of Maharashtra
R.M.BORDE
P.R.BORA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
