Allowed

Prakash Ashruba Hiwale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2024IA/2203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court restored a criminal writ petition that stood dismissed for non-supply of copies. The petitioner was granted relief subject to payment of costs and furnishing copies within the stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petition restored subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 costs to Kirtikar Law Library within one week and supply of copies within two weeks thereafter.

Prakash Ashruba Hiwale vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Gitalaxmi 36-IA-2203-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2203 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2002 OF 2021

¶5

Shri. Prakash Ashruba Hiwale …Applicant/ Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Mr. Gautam Pyarelal for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for Respondent No. 1-State.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 18^th JUNE 2024

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

This is an Application for recalling the Order dated 30^th August 2023 and for restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2021.

¶13

Record indicates that, by an Order dated 30^th August 2023, this Court had issued notice to the Respondents. The Petitioner was directed to supply spare copies in the Registry for effecting service within a period of two weeks from the date of said order, failing which the Petition to stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.

¶14

As the Petitioner failed to supply spare copies in the Registry within the stipulated period, the said conditional Order dated 30^th August 2023 has came into effect and the Petition stood

¶15

1/2

¶16

Gitalaxmi 36-IA-2203-2024.doc

¶17

dismissed as of today.

¶18

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, due to miscommunication and misinterpretation of the Order dated 30^th August 2023, he could not supply spare copies in the Registry within the stipulated period. That, if the Court restores the Petition, he will supply the spare copies within two weeks from the date of uploading of the present order on the official website of Bombay High Court.

¶19

In view thereof, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid to Kirtikar Law Library, Bombay High Court within a period of one week from the date of uploading of present order, Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶20

The Petitioner is directed to supply spare copies in the Registry within two weeks from the date of payment of costs to the said Library, failing which the Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.

¶21

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶22

(A. S. GADKARI, J.)

¶23

GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR

¶24

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.06.27 20:22:15 +0530

¶25

2/2

Prakash Ashruba Hiwale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Ashruba Hiwale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Aman Altaf Patel vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harshal Bharat Rathod vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok S/O Sudam Dongare vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

MD Asad MD Irshad Siddique vs State of Maharashtra

Madhura@Mathura Vijay Fakade vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Raghunathsingh Thakur vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.