Allowed

Dattatray Bhimashankar Tandale v. Principal Secretary, Cooperation Marketing and Textile Department and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Nov 2018CAI/61/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for restoration of a Writ Petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to unremoved office objections. The petitioner was granted a final indulgence to remove such objections within three weeks, failing which the petition would be dismissed again.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the Writ Petition and grant of three weeks to remove office objections.

Dattatray Bhimashankar Tandale Vs Principal Secretary… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(14) cai-61.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2018

¶4

IN PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION STAMP NO.12151 OF 2017

¶5

Shree Dattatray Himashankar Tandale : Applicant.

¶6

In the matter of

¶7

Shree Dattatray Himashankar Tandale : Petitioner versus Principal Secretary Cooperation Marketing & Textiles Department and ors. : Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Meenal Deshmukh and Mr. Laxman Bedekar I/by Mr. V S Deokar for the Applicant/Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : 01^st NOVEMBER 2018

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 The above Civil Application has been filed for restoration of the above Writ Petition which has stood dismissed for non-prosecution on account of the conditional order dated 10/01/2018.

¶12

2 In view of the fact that the above Writ Petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution on account of non-removal of office objections, it would be just and proper to grant one final indulgence to the Petitioner to prosecute the above Writ Petition on merits. The above Civil Application is accordingly allowed. Resultantly the above Writ Petition is restored to file. The learned

¶13

1 of 2

¶14

lgc

¶15

(14) cai-61.18.doc

¶16

counsel for the Petitioner to remove the office objections within three weeks from date. If the office objections are not removed within the time stipulated, then the above Writ Petition would once again stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. The above Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J]

¶18

[R. M. SAVANT, J]

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

lgc

Dattatray Bhimashankar Tandale v. Principal Secretary, Cooperation Marketing and Textile Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatray Bhimashankar Tandale v. Principal Secretary, Cooperation Marketing and Textile Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Ashok Suklal Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. S.S. Sahoo, Asstt. Reg. Vs Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Jidnyasa Bhaskar Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Nisalp Realties LLP (Formerly Known as Nishalp Realties Private Limited) and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Shri. Sunil Laxmman Midgule and Anr. Vs Administrative Officer, Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Primary School Board and Ors.

Suvarna Anna Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.