This single judge order dismisses two writ petitions for non-prosecution afterEarlier interim orders planned to dismiss them if the petitions were not restored or served. The petitioners failed to apply for restoration against a contesting respondent.
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.
skc
903-WP-4336-11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4336 OF 2011
Shankar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha
.. Petitioner
vs.
Shri Harshavardhan Patil, the Hon'ble Minister & Ors.
.. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4332 OF 2011
Nimsakhar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha & Anr.
.. Petitioners
vs.
Shri Harshavardhan Patil, the Hon'ble Minister & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr. S. S. Patwardhan with Mr. B. R. Mandlik for Petitioners. None for Respondents.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 14 JULY 2016
P.C :
1] On 7 December 2015, this court made the following order:
“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.
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.
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.
4] Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, these petitions are dismissed for non prosecution.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
Chandka
2/2
Shankar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha
Nimsakhar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha
Shri Harshavardhan Patil
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
