Sanjay Lalbahadur Divedi v. Shrikrishana Vayayam Shala Thr Its Secretary
1 LPA268.2010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3088 OF 2005 (D) Sanjay Lalbahadur Divedi, ..VS..
Shrikrishna Vyayam Shala and Ors., --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'
s or Judge'
s orders appearances, Court'
s orders of directions and Registrar'
s orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nobody for the appellant.
Shri P. S. Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for the respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 25 th January, 2021 Nobody is present for the appellant.
2.
Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, who submits that this L.A.P. is not maintainable in view of the law settled by the Apex Court.
3.
Heard Ms H. N. Jaipurkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent No.3, she submits that an appropriate order be passed in the matter.
4.
The judgment challenged in this appeal is the one rendered by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When a impugned judgment is so, L.P.A. does not lie as the view taken by the Supreme Court in the Cases of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujrath, AIR
2 LPA268.2010.odt 2015 SC 3623, Radhey Shyam and Anr., Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 423 and Ram Krishn Fauji Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 533, this law has been followed earlier by another Division Bench in the case of Motilal S/o Khamdeo Rokde and Ors., Vs. Chandan Balkrishna Lokhande and Ors., decided on 01.12.2020. Same is the fact situation of the present case and, therefore, this L.P.A. is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE Kirtak