Dismissed

Nimsakhar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha and Anr. v. Shri Harshavardhan Patil, Hon'Ble Minister for Cooperation and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2016WP/4332/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions seeking restoration and service of unserved respondents were dismissed as pending restoration efforts were unsuccessful despite opportunities provided to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed for non-prosecution as no restoration steps were taken against contesting respondent.

What the court decided

Nimsakhar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skc

¶2

903-WP-4336-11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4336 OF 2011

¶5

Shankar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

Shri Harshavardhan Patil, the Hon'ble Minister & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 4332 OF 2011

¶12

Nimsakhar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha & Anr.

¶13

.. Petitioners

¶14

vs.

¶15

Shri Harshavardhan Patil, the Hon'ble Minister & Ors.

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Mr. S. S. Patwardhan with Mr. B. R. Mandlik for Petitioners. None for Respondents.

¶18

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 14 JULY 2016

¶19

P.C :

¶20

1] On 7 December 2015, this court made the following order:

¶21

“1] These petitions are already dismissed as against Respondent No.5, who is contesting Respondent. Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Petitioners, seeks some time to take steps for restoration.

¶22

2] Accordingly, place these matters for further consideration on 2 February 2016 on the supplementary board. If by that date, no steps are taken, then these petitions shall be dismissed for non-prosecution, as there is no point in proceeding with these petitions, in absence of contesting Respondent.”

1/2

skc

903-WP-4336-11

2] Today, learned counsel for the petitioners states that they have made several attempts to contact the petitioners so as to able to take steps to serve the unserved respondents as also, to apply for restoration of these petitions as against respondent no. 5 who was the contesting respondent. Learned counsel states that despite such efforts, there is no response from the petitioners.

¶27

3] As noted earlier, the petitions are already dismissed as against respondent no. 5 who is the contesting respondent. Till date despite opportunities, the petitions have not been restored against the contesting respondent, since the petitioners have chosen not to even apply for such restoration.

¶28

4] Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, these petitions are dismissed for non prosecution.

¶29

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶30

Chandka

¶31

2/2

Nimsakhar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha and Anr. v. Shri Harshavardhan Patil, Hon'Ble Minister for Cooperation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Nimsakhar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha and Anr. v. Shri Harshavardhan Patil, Hon'Ble Minister for Cooperation and Ors.

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

Shri. Ankush Murlidhar Mukhekar and Anr. Vs Shri. Balasaheb Narayan Jadhav and Ors.

Pandurang Cindhu Choudhari Vs Kanha Sitaram Patil (Since Decd) through Lrs. and Anr.

Mrs. Padma Venkatesh Naidu (Orig. Respondents) and Ors. Vs Mr. Venkatesh Muthalgar Subbiah (Orig. Petitioners) and Ors.

Shankar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Vs Shri Harshavardhan Patil, Hon'Ble Minister for Cooperation and Ors.

M/S. Sadhana Construction Company, through Prop. Jagdish Sharadaprasad Tiwari Vs Mr. Dilip Mhasu Wankhede and Ors.

Alhad R. Vaidya and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.