← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3618/2011dismissedrule discharged

Pradnya D/O Dilip Kapdeo v. The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., And 3 ORS

2017-02-13Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

WP3618-11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3618/2011 (PRADNYA DILIP KAPDEO VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Dhanashree Wadpalliwar, Advocate h/f Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional G.P. for the R-1 to 3. Shri J.B. Jaiswal, counsel for the R-3.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 13 , 2017.

By this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the decision of the respondents, dated 09.07.2011 holding that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to the Health Science degree courses. The petitioner had sought a direction against the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioner, dated 25.03.2011 and permit the petitioner to participate in the admission process in pursuance of the same.

The cause for filing the writ petition appears to have been rendered infructuous due to passage of time. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents to accept her application form, dated 25.03.2011 and consider giving admission to her in the Health Science degree courses. Since more than six years have lapsed from the date of rejection of the application of the petitioner filed in the year 2011, the cause for filing the writ petition would not survive. Though we had issued Rule, no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner.

WP3618-11 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE