The Ulhasnagar Biscuit And Confectionery Manufactuers Association v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

S.R.JOSHI wp-8978-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8978 OF 2013 The Ulhasnagar Biscuit and Confectionery Manufacturers Association ..

Petitioner.

v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Others ..

Respondents.

Ms. Minal Chandnani, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Shruti B. Vyas, 'B' Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Saurabh Kurade i/b. Mr. Vijay Patil, for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2018.

P.C:- On 27th September, 2018, we passed the following order:- "

On 6th September, 2018, this Court has passed the following order in this Petition:- "1 Ms. Minal Chandnani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that she has just been instructed to appear for the petitioner as the earlier advocate has passed away.

In the above view, she seeks time to file Vakalatnama and take instructions.

At her request, Petition is adjourned to 27th September, 2018."

Today, Ms. Minal Chandnani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks time on the ground that she would be

S.R.JOSHI wp-8978-2013 getting Vakalatnama by tomorrow. As this Petition is of the year 2013 still awaiting admission, it was adjourned on the last occasion to today as sought by the Petitioner's advocate. However, the petitioners have neglected to give her any Vakalatnama till today. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this petition. Nevertheless, at the request of Ms. Minal Chandnani, we are dismissing the petition today.

We adjourn the petition to 1st October, 2018. The petition to be on board under caption for dismissal. In case, the petitioner does not brief an Advocate before the next date and/or the Advocate briefed is not ready to conduct the matter, we shall dismiss the petition."

Ms. Chandnani, learned Counsel states that she has not received a copy of the Vakalatnama from the Petitioner. Thus, she is unable to represent the Petitioner who were made aware of the baove order.

In the above view, Petition dismissed for non-prosecution. (RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) Smita Rajnikant Joshi by Smita Rajnikant Joshi Date: 2018.10.03 23:01:55 +0530