Bombay High CourtWP/753/2013dispossed offdismiss for default

Naresh S/O Vinayakrao Bansod v. Mah. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai Thr. Its Chairman And Others

2015-11-16Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.B. Varale2 pages

1611wp753.13.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.753/2013 Naresh s/o Vinayakrao Bansod ...Versus...

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai through its Chairman and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Zoting, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for respondent no.4 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.

DATE : 16.11.2015 By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the appointment of the respondent no.4 on the post of Member, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nagpur dated 12.11.2012 is bad in law. The petitioner has challenged the order of appointment of the respondent no.4, dated 12.11.2012. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the respondent no.4 as a Member, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nagpur was for a period of three years w.e.f. 12.11.2012 and the period of appointment has expired.

In view of the said position, the cause for filing the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The issue whether the respondent no.4 could have been appointed on the post of

1611wp753.13.odt Member, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, in accordance with law and whether the respondent no.4 was eligible for such appointment would be purely academic as the period of appointment has expired.

Since the cause for filing the writ petition has been rendered infructuous due to passage of time, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. The question in regard to the eligibility of the respondent no.4 to be appointed on the post of Member, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is, however, kept open.

Order accordingly.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar