Petitioner's counsel had expired and, despite notice to engage another advocate, no one appeared. The court found the petitioner not interested in prosecuting the writ petition and dismissed it as not prosecuted.
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.
(1) 5wp522.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.522/2019
Suresh alias Suraj Mahadeoraoji Munghate Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Mr. H. D. Futane, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2024
Record shows that counsel appearing for petitioner had expired. Thereafter, notice to engage another counsel was issued to the petitioner. Said notice is served on the petitioner but none appears for him. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
The petition is accordingly dismissed as not prosecuted.
(Anil L. Pansare, J.)
Kahale
Suresh alias Suraj Mahadeoraoji Munghate
State of Maharashtra
Anil L. Pansare
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
