Dismissed

Shivamsingh Vithalsingh Raghuvanshi v. the State of Maharashtra through the Commissioner and Others

Bombay HC26 Oct 2023WP/2230/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed two connected writ petitions filed by Shivamsingh and Rajashri Raghuvanshi for want of prosecution. The petitions were adjourned multiple times pending the filing of an affidavit to delete specific allegations, which the petitioners failed to file despite extensions and lack of legal representation.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-filing of affidavits and absence of counsel.

Shivamsingh Vithalsingh Raghuvanshi Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

{1}

wp2230-23.doc

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2230 OF 2023

¶6

Shivamsingh Vithalsingh Raghuvanshi VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondents - State

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 2238 OF 2023

¶13

Rajashri Vithalsingh Raghuvanshi VERSUS

¶14

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶15

PETITIONER

¶16

RESPONDENTS

¶17

Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for Respondents - State

¶18

[CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.]

¶19

DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2023

¶20

ORDER :

¶21

On 27^th February, 2023, we had passed the following order:

¶22

“1. The petitioner has stated on oath, in paragraph 4, that he has given a bribe of Rs.11,00,000/- to respondent No.6 Shri Mukund Shrirampant Deshpande on 24^th July, 2016 as gratification for granting permanent approval to his appointment as a caretaken in Apang Niwasi Vidyalaya. He has been cheated and a fraud has been played upon him by Shri. Deshpande.

¶23

{2}

¶24

wp2230-23.doc

¶25

The petitioner has submitted a complaint to the Police Station as well as S.D.P.P., Selu. He has also submitted the complaint to the Superintendent of Police.

¶26

The learned AGP submits that the law is settled that the bribe giver and bribe taker, both are guilty of misdeeds.

¶27

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, on instructions, that the petitioner be granted liberty to delete paragraph 4 and prayer clause ‘D’.

¶28

Since a very serious issue has been put forth, we deem it appropriate that the petitioner should file an affidavit in this Court seeking liberty to delete paragraph 4 and prayer clause ‘D’.

¶29

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that such an affidavit would be filed within 15 days.

¶30

Stand over to 15^th March, 2023 in the “passing orders’ category.”

¶31

Until 15^th September, 2023, the Petitioners had not complied with the directions of this Court and the matters were therefore adjourned. Once again, the matters were adjourned on 20^th September, 2023. On 10^th October, 2023, we had passed following order:

¶32

“1. None for the petitioner.

¶33

{3} wp2230-23.doc

¶34

Our first order dated 27.02.2023 passed in the first petition indicates that the Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit if he desires to delete paragraph 4, in which serious allegations have been made against a particular person. No such affidavit has been filed.

¶35

List both these petitions on 26.10.2023 for passing dismissal orders.”

¶36

The Office remark indicates that still the Petitioners have not filed affidavit so also none appeared for the Petitioners at the first call. We granted a pass over and none appeared for the Petitioners even at the second call. Nobody has mentioned on behalf of them. Learned advocates representing the Petitioners have not filed leave note.

¶37

Despite placing these matters in the category of passing order for dismissal and despite granting pass over, none of the advocates representing the petitioners are present.

¶38

In view of the above, both these matters are dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶39

[Y. G. KHOBRAGADE] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶40

drp/wp2230-23.doc

Shivamsingh Vithalsingh Raghuvanshi v. the State of Maharashtra through the Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivamsingh Vithalsingh Raghuvanshi v. the State of Maharashtra through the Commissioner and Others

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

Tarachand Sukhlal Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raees Rehman Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Munnalal Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rajashri Vithalsingh Raghuvanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Commissioner for Disabled and Others

Jyoti Ganesh More Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Dhanaji Damodhar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others