The High Court of Bombay dismissed Writ Petition No. 1008 of 2005 as withdrawn upon instructions from one petitioner. Writ Petition No. 955 of 2005 was dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of instructions from counsel.
Rule discharged in both writ petitions; no costs awarded.
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.
52-WP.1008.2005
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SALUNKE J V
Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.02.09 15:54:50 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2005
Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar } & Anr. } Petitioners
Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2005
Ghorpade Namdeo Nana & Anr. } Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Amar Bodke i/b. Mr. V. M. Thorat for the petitioners in both matters.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State in WP/1008/2005.
Mr. Milind V. More, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State in WP/955/2005.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2023
P.C.:
WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2005:
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.
2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. No costs.
1
52-WP.1008.2005
WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2005:
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no instructions in the matter.
4. The petitioners are challenging the advertisement dated 15th September 2004 and the Government Resolution dated 17th May 2004. The selection process must have been completed by now. Nothing would survive in the matter. Under the order dated 28th 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.
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.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
2
Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar
State of Maharashtra
Ghorpade Namdeo Nana
State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
