Ramdas Son Of Bhagwan Moundekar v. State Of Maharashtra And 4 ORS.

1 wp495.2000.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.495 OF 2000 [Ramdas Bhagwan Moundekar .vs. State of Maharashtra 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.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. ..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JUNE 10, 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.

None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the last date of hearing. No appears for the petitioner today also. Though one of the counsel for the petitioner is no more, it would not be possible to serve a notice on the petitioner for engagement of another counsel, as we do not find the address of the petitioner either in the cause title or in the solemn affirmation. The petitioner has mentioned that he was working, at the relevant time in 2000, as a Assistant Post Master at City Post Office, Itwari and the petitioner was 56 years of age, then. If the petitioner would have been interested in engagement of another counsel, he would have definitely engaged another counsel after making some inquiries in regard to the progress of his matter. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande