Mr. Sachin Bhupal Bargale And ORS v. M/S. Star Flexi-Pack Industries (I)Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Executive Director

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.9206 OF 2014 M/s Star Flexi Pack Industries ...

Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra Through its Joint Secretary, Industry, Energy and Labour Department And Others ...

Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2261 OF 2015 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.540 OF 2015 Mr. Sachin Bhupal Bargale And Others ...

Applicants

Versus

M/s Star Flexi-Pack Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Executive Director ...

Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.787 OF 2016 Mr. Suresh Anna Magdum And Another ...

Applicants

Versus

M/s Star Flexi-Pack Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Executive Director ...

Respondent .....

Mr. Meelan Topkar for the Petitioner.

Ms. Shraddha S. Dudhale i/b Mr. Shivaji A. Masal for Respondent No.2. Mr. Sandeep S. Koregave for Respondent No.3.

.....

CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATE : 15 JULY 2016.

2/3 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Writ Petition challenges an order passed on a review application of the Respondents herein. By this application, the Respondents sought review of an order permitting closure of the Petitioner-establishment. Learned Counsel submit that in pursuance of a settlement between the parties, the Respondents have withdrawn their review application and the Petition herein does not survive. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner tenders an additional affidavit, which is filed in Civil Application No.787 of 2016 taken out by the Intervenor, annexing the agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondents. In view of withdrawal of the review application, the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents does not survive. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner accordingly prays that the Petition be dismissed as not pressed.

The application of the Petitioner is opposed by the Intervenor, who also claims to be aggrieved by the order of closure. It is, however, admitted that the Intervenor has not applied for review of the closure order. If, he is aggrieved by the closure order, he may adopt his own proceedings challenging the closure order. He has no cause to oppose the dismissal order prayed for in the present Petition.

The rights and contentions of the parties on merits in that behalf are kept open.

3/3 This order is passed in the presence of all the Respondents. Accordingly the Petition is dismissed as not pressed. No order as to costs.

In view of the disposal of the Petition, the Civil Applications as well as the Contempt Petition do not survive and are disposed of as such. (S.C.GUPTE, J.)