In this writ petition, the Senior Advocate for the Respondents submitted that the impugned order was not implemented and the petitioners' promotion case was under consideration per an alleged circular.
Writ Petition disposed of. 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.
12 wp1601-19.docx
Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2023.02.03 11:28:33 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1601 OF 2019
Sujata Janardan Paparkar and Anr.
….. Petitioners
Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.
….. Respondents
Ms.Neeta P. Karnik for the Petitioners
Mr.A.V.Bukhari, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.Burhan Bukhari a/w Ms.Rupali Adhate for MCGM
Mr.Sonawane, Dy. Supt.Licence Dept. of MCGM
CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2023
P.C.
1 The learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents on instructions submits that the impugned order (Page 80) is not implemented and the case of the Petitioners for promotion is under consideration as per the alleged Circular dated 27.11.1986 and the same would be decided within six weeks.
2 In view of the said statement, nothing survives for further adjudication.
3 Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Mohite
1/1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding promotion consideration survives for further adjudication.
Whether the impugned order regarding promotion is implemented.
Sujata Janardan Paparkar and Anr
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
SANDEEP V. MARNE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
