← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/10381/2010disposed off

Bhawat Dagadu Kshirsagar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

2024-01-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10381 OF 2010 Bhagawat Dagadu Kshirsagar .. Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

.. Respondents None for the Petitioner.

Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P., with Ms. K.N. Solulnke, AGP for Respondent No.1State. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar and Mr. R.B. Khaire, for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ DATE : 3 RD JANUARY, 2024.

P.C. :

1.

There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. However, with the assistance of learned AGP appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.2, we have perused the record. By an order dated 6 th August 2010, the services of the nd respondent came to be transferred on the post that was held by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 being aggrieved by the order of transfer, approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and challenged the same. The Tribunal by its order dated 16 th November 2010 set aside the order of transfer. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

1/2 248-WP-10381-2010.doc Dixit

2.

On 13 th January 2011, while issuing notice in the Writ Petition, a direction to maintain status-quo as of that date was issued. Subsequently, on rd September 2011, the order of status-quo was clarified by stating that the same would not come in the way of respondent no.1 passing a general transfer order. It is informed by the learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.2 that subsequently the respondent no.2 has been transferred on three to four occasions.

3.

We find that with the passage of time, the grievance against the order passed by the Tribunal would not now survive. It is likely that even the petitioner may have been subsequently transferred. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of as having served its purpose. Rule is discharged. No costs.

[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ] 2/2 248-WP-10381-2010.doc Dixit