Dismissed¶¶23

Om Shubham Soham Vision Thr. Its Sole Pro. Prakash Sakharam Medhekar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. the Chief Secretary Law and Judiciary Department and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2025WP/13892/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution; petitioner absent even on second call; Om Shubham Soham Vision v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 13892 of 2025, decided 10 November 2025; reliefs concerned inquiry into complaint dated 09.01.2025 and cancellation of tender dated 09.07.2024 awarded to M/s. Shree Sai Smruti for fiberphoto frame; Article 226 mandamus; interim restraint on Respondents 2 to 4 and further payment to Respondent No. 5 sought; no merits considered; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

As nobody appeared for the petitioner even on the second call, Writ Petition No. 13892 of 2025 was dismissed for want of prosecution. ¶¶23

Om Shubham Soham Vision Thr. Its Sole Pro. Prakash… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

31-WP.13892.2025.doc

¶2

JVS.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 13892 OF 2025

¶5

Om Shubham Soham Vision } Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents

¶6

None for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No. 1.

¶8

CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶9

DATE: 10^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The petitioner prays for the following reliefs: -

¶12

“a. Rule be issued.

¶13

b. That this Hon’ble Court in exercise of power under article 226 of the Constitution of India may issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other writ thereby direct the Respondent No. 1 to conduct the proper inquiry in concern complaint dated 09.01.2025 made by the Petitioner and to submit the report thereon before this Hon’ble Court.

¶14

c. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the record and proceeding from the Respondents and after looking into legality and proprietary thereof cancel the award in respect of impugned tender awarded to Respondent No. 5 i.e. M/s. Shree Sai Smruti dated 09.07.2024 and direct the Respondents to issue fresh E- tender for fiberphoto frame.

¶15

d. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to conduct the proper inquiry in concern to the complaint dated 09.01.2025 made by the Petitioner and to submit the report thereon before this Hon’ble Court in stipulated time.

¶16

¶17

31-WP.13892.2025.doc

¶18

e. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon’ble court be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 2 to 4 from acting upon the said impugned tender dated 09.07.2024 and/or realisation of the further payment to Respondent No. 5 in respect of the said impugned tender.

¶19

f. Ad-interim and interim relief be granted in terms of prayer clause (d) and (e) above.

¶20

g. Any such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶21

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner even on the second call.

¶22

JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE

¶23

Writ Petition No. 13892 of 2025 is dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶24

Digitally signed by JAYANTVISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2025.11.12 14:44:26 +0530

¶25

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶26

Om Shubham Soham Vision Thr. Its Sole Pro. Prakash Sakharam Medhekar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. the Chief Secretary Law and Judiciary Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Shubham Soham Vision Thr. Its Sole Pro. Prakash Sakharam Medhekar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. the Chief Secretary Law and Judiciary Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) vs Deepak Kumar

Vikram Kashinathrao Khutwad vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Dnyanoba Bhiva Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr.

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar vs the Secretary Law and Judiciary and 9 Ors.

Nadeem R. Kapoor vs the State of Maharashtra and 23 Ors.