The High Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution, noting the absence of the petitioner and advocate and the prolonged procedural delays.
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.
vikrant 1/2 908-WP-3247-2013.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3247 OF 2013
Anjana Chetna Mahadik … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. V.K. Hingorani for the Petitioner (absent). Mr. Sushma Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : MARCH 15, 2017.
P.C. :
The petitioner and the Advocate are absent. This Writ Petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court on 5th July, 2013. On that date, the Petition was directed to be amended so as to implead the selected candidate. After amendment, the Court issued notice on 23rd July, 2013 to the newly added selected candidate. Thereafter, for compliance with this direction, the matter was listed before the Registrar (Judicial) and though the petitioner's Advocate was present, steps to serve the 3rd respondent were not taken till 15th October, 2013. On that date, a notice was issued by the Registry. It appears that thereafter, the notice was duly served and the respondent no.3 was represented by an Advocate. From the record, it appears that the matter was circulated on 1st April, 2014 and again notice was directed to be
vikrant 2/2 908-WP-3247-2013.odt
issued. That was because the notice was not served earlier for want of proper address. These procedural aspects have taken up much of the time of this Court. It seems that the petitioner and the Advocate both are not interested in arguing the matter. The Writ Petition is being listed on several occasions prior to this date. In these circumstances, it is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)
(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Anjana Chetna Mahadik
State of Maharashtra
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
B. P. COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
