Santosh Nanhusingh Rathod v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8358 OF 2020 SANTOSH NANHUSINGH RATHOD

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, JJ) DATE : JULY 6, 2021 PER COURT :

1.

On 30/06/2021, none appeared for the petitioner, either through the online mode or by remaining present in the Court Hall in which the arrangement to address the Court via Video Conferencing has been made. Even today, despite a pass over and the matter being called out post lunch for the second time, none has appeared for the petitioner through either modes.

2.

The petitioner has put forth prayer clause "B" and "C" as under :- "B. To direct the respondent's authority to recover the withdrawn amount of Rs.20,65,824/- from respondent No.8

- 2 - with interest and bogus appointment of hostel superintendent order dated 25/06/2015 to be set aside.

C. To direct the respondent's authority to take an action against the President of Banjara Seva Sangh and existing body members as per law and procedure, the circumstances mentioned in this petition in the interest of justice." 3.

In the body of the petition, the petitioner does not disclose any legal injury caused to him and has not disclosed his locus in filing this petition. The possibility that the petitioner desires to settle some score with respondent No.8 cannot be ruled out considering the prayer clauses reproduced hereinabove. So also, the petitioner has stated in paragraph No.13 that he has filed a complaint dated 21/11/2019 with the Supdt.of Police, Rural, Aurangabad for registering an offence against respondent No.8. As a crime was not registered, the petitioner has preferred a complaint u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned J.M.F.C., Aurangabad alleging an offence u/s 420, 120(B), 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 479 r/w 34 of the IPC and process has been issued in the same matter, to respondent No.8. 4.

In view of the above, we do not find that this petition can be entertained as no cause of action appears to have accrued to the

- 3 - petitioner.

5.

This petition, stands dismissed.

( S.G. MEHARE ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )