Bombay High CourtWP/10709/2019disposed offdismissed for default

Chakradhar Hanvantrao Ambhore v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2019-12-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote3 pages

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1016 WRIT PETITION NO.10709 OF 2019 CHAKRADHAR HANVANTRAO AMBHORE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

1017 WRIT PETITION NO.10777 OF 2019 NARESH VASANT SARPALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

1018 WRIT PETITION NO.10778 OF 2019 MANOJ PRATAPSING CHANDEL

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

1019 WRIT PETITION NO.10779 OF 2019 RUPESH RAM CHAUDHARI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

1020 WRIT PETITION NO.10780 OF 2019 GANESH BHAGWAN KUHIRE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

1021 WRIT PETITION NO.10781 OF 2019 RAJU QADAR SHAIKH

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

(2) 1022 WRIT PETITION NO.10782 OF 2019 DIPAK VISHNU SABLE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

1023 WRIT PETITION NO.10783 OF 2019 PRAVIN LAXMAN BHALERAO

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

1024 WRIT PETITION NO.10784 OF 2019 KAILASH PRALHAD CHINCHANE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

1025 WRIT PETITION NO.10785 OF 2019 WITH WP/15031/2019 WITH WP/15032/2019 WITH WP/15033/2019 WITH WP/15034/2019 WITH WP/15035/2019 WITH WP/15036/2019 WITH WP/15037/2019 WITH WP/15038/2019 WITH WP/15039/2019 WITH WP/15040/2019 WITH WP/15041/2019 WITH WP/15042/2019 WITH WP/15043/2019 WITH WP/15044/2019 GOPAL SUBHASH MORE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Mr. Promod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.G. Borade, Advocate for the respondent/State. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. ...

CORAM :

S.V. GANGAPURWALA & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATE :

13 December 2019.

(3) PER COURT :- .

We have heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Against termination of their contract with the GTL, the petitioners have already approached to the Labour Court. The matter is sub judice before the Labour Court. 2.

The another contention of the petitioners is that their representations are not yet decided. Mr. Bajaj, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the representations filed by the petitioners have been decided on the basis of the affidavits submitted. Respondent No.2 shall communicate the decision on the representations to the petitioners. 3.

Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) VD_Dhirde