Dismissed

Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2023WP/1008/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of two writ petitions. WP 1008 of 2005 was dismissed as withdrawn by one petitioner. WP 955 of 2005 challenging an advertisement and government resolution was dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of instructions from counsel.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions were dismissed: one as withdrawn, the other for non-prosecution.

Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar and Anr. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

52-WP.1008.2005

¶2

jvs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SALUNKE J V

¶5

Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.02.09 15:54:50 +0530

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2005

¶7

Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar } & Anr. } Petitioners

¶8

Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents

¶9

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2005

¶10

Ghorpade Namdeo Nana & Anr. } Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents

¶11

Mr. Amar Bodke i/b. Mr. V. M. Thorat for the petitioners in both matters.

¶12

Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State in WP/1008/2005.

¶13

Mr. Milind V. More, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State in WP/955/2005.

¶14

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶15

DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2023

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2005:

¶18

1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has written instructions from petitioner no. 2 to withdraw the writ petition. The written communication of the petitioner no. 2 is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

¶19

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. No costs.

¶20

¶21

52-WP.1008.2005

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2005:

¶23

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

¶24

4. The petitioners are challenging the advertisement dated 15^th September 2004 and the Government Resolution dated 17^th May 2004. The selection process must have been completed by now. Nothing would survive in the matter. Under the order dated 28^th November 2005, the present writ petition was to be tagged along with Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1997. It appears that Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1997 is disposed of in the year 2011.

¶25

5. As the learned counsel does not have any instructions in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Rule is discharged. No costs.

¶26

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶27

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar and Anr. v. 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

Jaspal Singh Kohli Vs Punjab and Sind Bank through the Chairman and 5 Ors.

Babulal Chandulal Dave Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary to the Ministry of Envi and Climate Change and Ors.

Bhagwansing Gulabsingh Rajput Vs Maha Mumbai Metro Operation Corporation Limited and Anr.

Ghorpade Namdeo Nana and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganesh Vishnupant Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Smt. Sangita Dinesh Nakhawa Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary General Administration Dept and Anr.