In a writ petition regarding suspension period representation, the court held the petition devoid of purpose as the decision was already taken and disposed of the matter without costs.
No costs.
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.
1 940-wp 4615-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4615 OF 2021
Asaram Dhansing Umbre
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
.. Respondents
Mr. Amol A. Kokad, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. P. R. Nangare, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 08th September, 2021.
PER COURT:-
.Mr. Kokad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has given representation on 26.11.2020 for deciding the
suspension period.
2. Mr. Nangare, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that
the decision has already been taken. The representation of the
petitioner is also decided. The Chief Executive Officer has already taken
decision with regard to the suspension period.
3. In the light of that, the purpose of the petition does not survive.
The petitioner is at liberty to assail the order if passed against him.
4. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
( R. N. LADDHA )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
1 of 1
Asaram Dhansing Umbre
The State of Maharashtra
others
S. V. Gangapurwala
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court