← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/10557/2012disposed offdismissed for default

Shriram Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Navandi Thr Secretary v. The State Of Mah And ORS

2018-07-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. M. Gavhane2 pages

( 1 ) wp10557.2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10557 OF 2012 Shriram Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Through its Secretary Shri. Prakash S/o Gangadharrao Kadrekar ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others ... Respondents Mr. M.N. Kolhe, Advocate h/f Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.S. Shinde, AGP for respondent/State Mr.V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

DATED :

05.07.2018 P.C. :- Heard Mr. M.N. Kolhe h/f Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Shinde, learned AGP appearing for the respondent/State.

2.

Mr. M.N. Kolhe prays for sometime on the ground that the learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad is out of station. The perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is represented by two counsels. The perusal of the order sheet further shows that right from 20.02.2018, time was sought by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and even though the time was granted, learned counsel failed to appear before this Court on 21.02.2018. The matter was adjourned to 12.03.2018. The request was made for

( 2 ) wp10557.2012 adjournment and at the request of the counsel by way of last opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2018. On 21.03.2018 when the matter was called out none appeared for the petitioner and this Court again granted opportunity and adjourned the matter on 25.04.2018. On 25.04.2018 the learned counsel prayed for adjournment and again by way of last opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 07.06.2018. On 07.06.2018 none appeared for the petitioner and the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass following order:- "None appears for the petitioner.

If the matter is not worked out on the next date, the Court would be constrained to dismiss the mater.

S.O. to 5.7.2018."

3.

Today again a request is made on the ground of non-availability of the counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above referred facts, we are not inclined to grant any adjournment and the only way left open is to dismiss the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.] ssp/2018/July18/wp10557.2012