Balasaheb Suryakantrao Ambore v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

- 1 - ca1353.24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 935 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1353 OF 2024 IN WP/14530/2023 Balasaheb Suryakantrao Ambore ....Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others .....Respondents .....

Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the State.

Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2024.

PER COURT :

1.

Considering the consistent absence of the learned Advocate for the Applicant, we had passed an order dated 2nd February, 2024, which reads as under :- 1.

On 30.11.2023, though the learned Advocate for the Petitioner was absent, we had issued notice in the Writ Petition, in view of the cause raised.

2.

Today, the Civil Application is before us seeking restoration. The Writ Petition was dismissed for non removal of Office objections. Today also, the learned Advocate is not present.

- 2 - ca1353.24.odt 3.

We find that this is not a good practice for a lawyer to remain absent in Court proceedings believing that the Court will proceed to pass an appropriate order in his absence. We are listing this Civil Application on 09.02.2024, in the urgent orders category for passing dismissal order.

2.

Yet, today, when the matter is called out, none is present for the Applicant.

3.

In view of the above, this Civil Application is dismissed for non-prosecution.

( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) JUDGE JUDGE dyb