Nivratti Shyamrao Kachve v. Village Development Officer Gramsevak Daithna And Others

542.22ca (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2022 IN WPST/37292/2019 NIVRATTI SHYAMRAO KACHVE

VERSUS

VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, (GRAMSEVAK), DAITHNA AND OTHERS ...

Mr K. B. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATE : 28th January, 2022 PER COURT:

1.

This civil application seeks the restoration of Writ Petition (St.) No.37292/2019, which is dismissed in default on account of non-removal of office objections, being notified by the Registrar (Judicial) on 09/08/2021.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the application.

2.

It appears that the order dated 09/08/2021 granted two weeks time to remove office objections and on failure to remove the same, the Registration was refused automatically without reference to the Court. Since there was a failure to remove office

542.22ca (2) objection within period stipulated, the registration of the petition was refused.

3.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant, I am convinced that the applicant deserves one more opportunity to remove office objections.

Hence, subject to removal of office objections within further period of two weeks from today, Writ Petition (St.) No.37292/2019 shall stand restored to the file. However, this is subject to the learned Counsel for the applicant, depositing costs of Rs.5,000/- towards the Advocate Association's Bar Library, High Court, Aurangabad, and it is made clear that the concerned Advocate on record shall bear the costs, since he was duty bound to remove office objections in the interest of his client. The civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) sjk