← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1242/2015dismissedrule discharged

Habibshah Raufshah Fakir v. State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Social Justice And Cultural Department, Mumbai And Another

2016-10-15Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Kum. Justice Indira Jain1 pages

WP1242-15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1242/2015 (HABIBSHAH RAUFSHAH FAKIR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P. Maldhure, A.G.P. For the R-1 & 2.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE : OCTOBER 15 , 2016.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has presented an application for seeking permission to withdraw his vakalatnama, in the court, today. The same is accepted on record. It is stated in the application that the counsel for the petitioner had served a notice dated 20.07.2016 by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due to the petitioner that he would withdraw the vakalatnama as the petitioner was not giving any instructions in the matter to the counsel and was not receiving the phone calls of the counsel or calling the counsel. It is stated that the notice dated 20.07.2016 was duly received by the petitioner on 23.07.2016.

In view of the aforesaid, we permit the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the vakalatnama and the appearance of the counsel for the petitioner would stand discharged. Since we find that the petitioner has not taken any steps despite the service of notice of withdrawal of vakalatnama on him on 23.07.2016, it is apparent that the petitioner is not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE