Petitioner challenged a notification appointing a government pleader. The court held prayer (a) no longer survives due to passage of time and disposed of the petition without considering merits.
Petition disposed of as prayer (a) does not survive due to passage of time; Rule discharged.
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
wp-3535-07.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3535 OF 2007
Parimal Gajanan Naik ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents
None for the Petitioner. Mr.P.G.Sawant, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : A.S.OKA &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2016
P.C.:
None for the Petitioner. Perused the Petition and the prayers in the
Petition. Prayer (a) is for setting aside the Notification dated 9 April 2007, by which the fourth Respondent was appointed as a District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor of District Sindhudurg for a period of one year. Prayer (b) is a consequential prayer. It is obvious that prayer (a) does not survive with a passage of time. Accordingly, the Petition does not
survive and is disposed of. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)
1/1
Uday.P.Kambli
Parimal Gajanan Naik
State of Maharashtra
A.S. Oka
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
