Anil Yadavrao Suryawanshi v. The Union Of India And Others

{1} wp865416.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8654 OF 2016 Anil Yadavrao Suryawanshi Petitioner

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Pune Division & another Respondents Mr.N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar, advocate for the petitioner. Respondent No.1 deleted as per Court's order dated 18.08.2016. Mr.A.P.Bhandari, advocate for Respondent No.2-Corporation. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATE : 23rd September, 2019 PER COURT:

Heard Mr.Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He fairly submits that the events, post filing of petition, have now rendered the petition infructuous. It is the submission of Mr.Patil that there were only two candidates selected for drawing the lots i.e. petitioner and Respondent No.3. Subsequently post filing of the petition, Respondent No.2- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Cancelled selection of Respondent No.3. Mr.Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the backdrop of these facts, prays for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach Respondent No.2 by way of filing a representation.

{2} wp865416.odt In this view of the matter, writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. Needless to state that if such representation is filed by the petitioner, Respondent No.2Corporation may decide the same on its own merits and as per the rules and regulations of the Corporation.

AVINASH G. GHAROTE PRASANNA B. VARALE JUDGE JUDGE adb/