The State Of Maharashtra And ANR. v. Jadhav Shashikant Murlidhar And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4718 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Petitioners

Versus

Shri Jadhav Shashikant Murlidhar & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. N.C. Walimbe, AGP for the State/Petitioners. None present for the Respondents.

CORAM : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. & M. S. SONAK, J.

Date : 02.08.2018 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1] Not on board. However, taken on board since connected WP No. 6679 of 2014 was on board.

2] Heard Mr. Walimbe AGP, for the State. The respondents though served, neither present nor their advocates arepresent.

3] The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 04.07.2003 made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 1271 of 2002.

4] In the synopsis to the petition, this is what he stated at the outset :- "(A) The Petitioners are challenging the impugned Order dated 4/7/2003 passed by the Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Original Application No. 1271 of 2002 in the present Writ Petition.

The Learned Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai passed the impugned order on the basis of the Writ Petition No. 1559 of 1999 which is already been admitted by this Hon'ble Court as on 29/6/1999. The present Writ Petition is required to be heard alongwith the said Writ Petition No. 1559 of 1999." 5] WP No. 1559 of 1999 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Hemalata Babanrao Hulawale) came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 16.06.2006. Based thereon from the judgment and order dated 16.06.2006 in Smt. Hemalata Babanrao Hulawale (supra) even the present petition is required to be dismissed. 6] Similar petitions instituted by the State i.e. WP No. 10447 of 2004 and WP No. 5357 of 2004, not to mention the connected WP No. 6679 of 2014 have also been dismissed based upon the ruling in Smt. Hemalata Babanrao Hulawale (supra).

7] Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S. SONAK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)