Sharad Sakpal And Pratiksha Shirodkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And 3 ORS

suresh 5-NMW-189.2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.189 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION {L} NO.196 OF 2015 Sharad Sakpal .... Applicant In the matter between Sharad Sakpal & Anr.

.... Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.... Respondents Ms Geetanjali U. Shinde for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. H.C. Pimple for Respondent No.3.

Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar for Respondent No.4.

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 12, 2016 P.C:

1.

Heard the applicant's Advocate. We have also heard Mr. Bhutekar, appearing for the private respondent No.4 and Mr. Pimple, appearing for the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, which is arrayed as respondent No.3.

2.

For the reasons set out in the affidavit in support and

suresh 5-NMW-189.2016.doc since the Advocate concerned says that she was unwell and not attending the Court, the motion is allowed. The order of the Prothonotary & Senior Master is set aside. The writ petition is restored to file. The office objections shall be removed within four weeks, failing which the writ petition to stand dismissed, without any further reference to Court.

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)