← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1479/2021dismissed

M/S. We- The Working Elements, Thr. Its Proprietor Ashish Keshav Ukey v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Tourism And Others

2021-11-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil L. Pansare2 pages

1 / 2 36-WP 1479.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1479 OF 2021 M/s. WE-The Working Elements thr. its proprietor Ashish Keshav Ukey vs.

The State of Maharashtra and others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders Court'

s or Judge'

s Orders. or directions and Registrar'

s orders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 5. Mr. Ritesh Tambe, Advocate h/f. Mr. Bharat Borikar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

CORAM :

SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE :

17/11/2021 Nobody is present for the petitioner.

2.

Heard Shri.Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 5 and Shri.Tambe, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3.

On the last date which was of 15/11/2021 also, nobody was present for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in this petition. It also appears to us that the reason for lack of interest in prosecuting this petition on the part of the petitioner appears to be arising from the fundamental defect in this KOLHE

2 / 2 36-WP 1479.2021 petition. We have already commented on the fundamental defect which touches the issue of maintainability of the petition. On the last date we expressed our prima facie opinion that the petition which raises nothing but a money claim is not maintainable before this Court. This conclusion is further strengthened by lack of interest shown by the petitioner, which he would otherwise have taken had he been convinced about maintainability of the petition.

4.

The petition is therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE CHANDRAKANT KOLHE 17:32 KOLHE