The petitioner did not appear. The court noted a prior rejection of an intervention application and dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution.
Petition dismissed for want of prosecution due to the petitioner's absence and lack of desire to prosecute.
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.
ppn 1 21.wp-5368.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONPRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2024.04.17WRIT PETITION NO.5368 OF 201713:56:40 +0530
Deepak Ratilal Mehta.. Petitioner
Versus
The Maharashtra Girls Education Society & Ors.
.. Respondents
None for the petitioner.
Mr.Vipul Patel i/by Mr.Haresh Mehta & Co. for respondent no.1.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 15 th April 2024
P.C.:-
.There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The
record indicates that the petitioner’s application seeking leave to
intervene in the proceedings that was filed by respondent no.1 under
Section 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 came to be
rejected by an order dated 17th September 2016.
2.It appears that with the passage of time, the petitioner is
not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed
for want of prosecution.
JITENDRA JAIN, J.A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be heard in the absence of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Ratilal Mehta
The Maharashtra Girls Education Society
A.S. Chandurkar
Jitendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court