Dismissed

Shri Milind Rampratap Hiwale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Mar 2017WP/958/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging an interim stay order by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal because the petitioner did not press the petition. The court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as not pressed. The Tribunal is directed to decide the application within two months.

Shri Milind Rampratap Hiwale Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

WP.958/2017(21)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 958 OF 2017

¶6

Shri. Milind Rampratap Hiwale Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Nitin P. Dalvi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Gaurav Bandiwadekar i/b. Mr. Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.2

¶11

Mrs. Sushma Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :29^TH MARCH, 2017

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The Petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 6^th December, 2016 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal by this interim order has stayed the transfer order dated 2^nd December, 2016 transferring the Respondent No.4 from Traffic Branch, Uran and thereby posting the Petitioner in his place.

¶15

Today when this Petition came up for admission it is informed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even the Respondent No.1 State had challenged the present impugned order passed by the Tribunal in a separate Writ Petition, which later came to be

¶16

WP.958/2017(21)

¶17

¶18

withdrawn. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as he has now appeared before the Tribunal and it has been indicated by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the order that the Tribunal may take the case for final disposal at the stage of admission, the Petitioner would not press this Petition. He, however, requested that the Tribunal may decide the application at the earliest as even the pleadings are now complete. This request is not opposed by the Respondents.

¶19

In view of the submission made by the Petitioner we pass the following order:

¶20

The present Writ Petition is disposed of as not pressed.

¶21

We, however, request the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to decide O.A. No. 1137 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from today.

¶22

All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶23

No order as to costs.

¶24

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶25

3 WP.958/2017(21)

Shri Milind Rampratap Hiwale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Milind Rampratap Hiwale v. the State of Maharashtra 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh @ Bandya Raghunath Sawant

Suresh Maruti Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nana Uddhav Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rama Balu Mase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dada Alias Pravin Satish Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Arun Kumar Shrivastava Vs Union of India, through the Defence Secretary and Ors.