Sohel Jagangir Shaikh And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:14810-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

15 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2024 01.

Sohel S/o. Jagangir Shaikh, Age- 26 Years, Occu- Education, R/o. Mominpura, Nevasa Khurd (Rural), Ahmednagar, Tal. And Dist.- Ahmednagar.

02.

Shahid Husen Shaikh, Age- 29 years, Occu.- Business, R/o.- Mominpura, Nevasa Khurd (Rural), Ahmednagar, Tal. And Dist.- Ahmednagar.

03.

Faruk Hamid Bagwan, Age- 30 years, Occu.- Business, R/o. Mominpura, Nevasa Khurd (Rural), Ahmednagar, Tal. And Dist.- Ahmednagar.

04.

Shahrukhkhan Akhbarkhan Pathan, Age- 28 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Mominpura, Nevasa Khurd (Rural), Ahmednagar, Tal. And Dist.- Ahmednagar.

05.

Parvej Isak Shaikh, Age- 24 years, Occu. Student, R/o. Mominpura, Nevasa Khurd (Rural), Ahmednagar, Tal. And Dist.- Ahmednagar.

06.

Rauf Shaikh, Age- Major, R/o. Mominpura, Nevasa Khurd (Rural), Ahmednagar, Tal. And Dist.- Ahmednagar.

... Petitioners

Versus

01.

The State of Maharashtra, through the Nevasa Police Station.

02.

The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.

03.

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Shrirampur, Division Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

... Respondents

...

Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Sanjay Kakde. (Absent) APP for Respondent / State : Smt. R. P. Gour. ...

CORAM :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE :

11th June, 2025.

Per Court:

.

The learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. The petition was filed for the following reliefs:- "B) To direct the respondent police authorities to decide the application dated 26-04-2024 seeking permission for celebration of Urs (Urus) Sharif by allowing the application, by issuing the writ of mandamus; C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present criminal writ petition the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the application dated 26-04-2024 seeking permission for celebration of Urs (Urus) Sharif by allowing the application, by issuing the writ of mandamus." The matter was taken up before the Vacation Court on 28th May, 2024. On that day, this Court had directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the application dated 26th April, 2024 within a period of two days and communicate the decision to the petitioners. Thereafter, the matter was again before the Vacation Court on 30th May, 2024. It appears that by that time, respondent No.3 had decided the

representation / application by issuing order on 29th May, 2024 by assigning reason for not granting permission to carry out the procession. Thereafter, there is no amendment that has been carried out by the petitioners to challenge the order dated 29th May, 2024. This Court then observed, prima-facie, that the objective satisfaction cannot be faulted and no relief was granted pertaining to procession. The only fact that liberty was granted to the petitioners to apply for permission for the next year and the directions to the respondents to decide the said application on its merits.

Under such circumstance, now nothing survives in this petition. Hence, we dispose of the criminal writ petition. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ] nga