Disposed

Mr. Shailendra Ravji Chavan v. the State Election Commission and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2024WP/770/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An old writ petition from 2017 was listed as infructuous after prior notice to the parties. No praecipe was filed and no one appeared for the petitioner, so the court disposed of the petition with liberty to revive it if the cause of action survives, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to revive; civil applications also disposed of; no costs.

Mr. Shailendra Ravji Chavan Vs the State Election Commission and… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

402-WP-770-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 770 OF 2017

¶5

Mr. Shailendra Ravji Chavan ... Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State Election Commission and Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

None for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni a/w Mr. Gourav Shahane a/w Mr. Mr. Krishna Jaybhay, Ms. Sweta Shah, for Respondent / Pune Municipal Corporation. Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye, for Respondent No.1/State Election Commission. Mr. P. P. Kakde, G. P. a/w Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent/State.

¶10

C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI &

¶11

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2024

¶13

PC :

¶14

1. Learned Government Pleader, Appellate Side had circulated with the

¶15

Registry a list of old infructuous matters so that these matters could be listed and disposed of as infructuous. This petition is one of such matters in the list. This list of infructuous matters was notified by the office by its notice dated 25 January 2024, by which the parties/advocates were intimated that if the proceedings have not become infructuous, then a praecipe be submitted in

¶16

the office before its listing stating that the matter needs to be adjudicated. Accordingly, after such prior notice, this matter is listed today before this Kiran Kawre 1/2

¶17

402-WP-770-2017.doc

¶18

Court.

¶19

2 No praecipe has been received on behalf of the petitioners or the advocate for the petitioners stating that something would survive for adjudication in this petition.

¶20

3 Even when this petition was called out, none appears for the petitioner. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute this petition and/or it has become infructuous. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition in the event the petitioner feels that the cause of action still survives.

¶21

Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶22

Civil Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶23

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶24

Kiran Kawre 2/2

Mr. Shailendra Ravji Chavan v. the State Election Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shailendra Ravji Chavan v. the State Election Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda through Its Authorised Officer. Vs Kailash Mahadev Patil and Anr.

Netraj Restaurant and Bar Thr Its Proprietor Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Office of the Government and Ors.

Usha Baburao Pawar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

S.V. Exports Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs, Siib

Pallav Gold vs Union of India

Maxis Bullion vs Union of India