← Library
Bombay High CourtNMW/119/2016disposed off

Mr. Ravindra Raju And Another v. The Administrative General And Another

2016-04-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari2 pages

10-NMW.119.2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 119 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 656 OF 2014 Mr. Ravindra Raju and Anr.

} Applicants versus The Administrative General } and Anr.

} Respondents Ms. Usha Purohit for the applicants.

Mr. Abhilash Tripathi with Mr. Rui Rodrigues i/b. Ms. Yogita R. Singh for respondent no. 1.

Mr. D. M. Joshi for respondent no. 2.

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED :- APRIL 1, 2016 P.C. :- 1) This writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners on 2nd December, 2015.

2) The order passed on 2nd December, 2015 was in the presence of the petitioners' advocate and that of respondent no. 2. After the writ petition was heard for sometime, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn and by a detailed order, which reads as under:- J.V.Salunke,PA

10-NMW.119.2016.doc "After this writ petition was heard for some time, learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the petition, but with liberty to approach a Competent Court to seek a declaration that the Petitioners are lawful tenants of the premises, which are subject matter of the order passed by the Administrative General, Maharashtra State.

2.

We grant leave to withdraw the petition. It stands disposed of with liberty as prayed. The Competent Court shall decide the issue and the claim for declaration uninfluenced by the order passed either by the Administrative General dated 7 September 2012 or the impugned order in this writ petition. All contentions of the parties are kept open."

3) We cannot entertain now a request to restore such a petition. This is not a dismissal for want of prosecution or in default for non appearance of the advocate or the petitioner. This is a conscious act of withdrawal of the writ petition after the court was disinclined to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

4) The motion is entirely misconceived. It is dismissed. (G.S.KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) J.V.Salunke,PA