The State Of Maharashtra And O Rs v. Santosh Rambhau Sarode And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9940 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8701 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and another .. Applicants versus Santosh Rambhau Sarode and others .. Respondents ---- Mr. S.K. Tambe, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for applicants Mr. N. S. Karad, Advocate holding Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent no.1 CORAM :

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

Date :

12th September, 2017 ORDER :

1.

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the review applicants.

2.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader purports to refer to some criminal proceedings and submits that orders in respect of report made were being awaited and as such time was sought when order dated 05-07-2012 had been passed.

3.

He submits that while time had been sought as aforesaid, the then division bench had passed an order on 05-07-2012 in above writ petition, directing respondents no. 1 and 2 therein [present review applicants] to pass final orders within a period

three months from the date of said order in writ petition, if the same were not already passed and to communicate the same to respondent no. 4 as also to writ petitioner/head master by R.P.A.D.

4.

However, looking at that this review application, though purportedly filed on 22-08-2012, the same has come up for hearing before this court in 2017, while the period within which action was expected as directed under order dated 05-07-2012 has expired long ago.

5.

In the circumstances, the purpose underlying the review application seeking reasonable time to pass final order pursuant to order of the division bench dated 05-07-2012, five years down into 2017 does not carry any meaningful purpose. In the circumstances, the purport underlying the application seeking time for passing orders is exhausted.

6.

Review application, as such, has been rendered inefficacious. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the application.

7.

Review application, as such, stands dismissed.

SANGITRAO S. PATIL SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE JUDGE pnd