Ghorpade Namdeo Nana And ANR. v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

52-WP.1008.2005 jvs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALUNKE J V WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2005 Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar } & Anr.

} Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.02.09 15:54:50 +0530 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2005 Ghorpade Namdeo Nana & Anr.

} Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents Mr. Amar Bodke i/b. Mr. V. M. Thorat for the petitioners in both matters.

Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State in WP/1008/2005.

Mr. Milind V. More, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State in WP/955/2005.

CORAM:

S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE:

FEBRUARY 8, 2023 P.C.:

WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2005:

1.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has written instructions from petitioner no. 2 to withdraw the writ petition. The written communication of the petitioner no. 2 is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 2.

At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. No costs.

52-WP.1008.2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2005:

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

4.

The petitioners are challenging the advertisement dated 15th September 2004 and the Government Resolution dated 17th May 2004. The selection process must have been completed by now. Nothing would survive in the matter. Under the order dated 28th November 2005, the present writ petition was to be tagged along with Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1997. It appears that Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1997 is disposed of in the year 2011. 5.

As the learned counsel does not have any instructions in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Rule is discharged. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)