Chandrashekhar S/O Narayanrao Satpute v. The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Social Justice And Oths

1 207.wp.5354.10.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.

5354/2010 Chandrashekhar s/o. Narayanrao Satpute Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order or directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Y. N. Sambre, Advocate h/f. Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. A. Madiwale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. CORAM :

A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,JJ.. DATED :

13.06.2023 .

By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.10.2010 by which his services as driver were placed under suspension. According to the petitioner, the order of suspension issued by the respondent No.8 is without any authority of law since the respondent No.8 was posing as Secretary of the Society without any legal basis.

2.

During pendency of the writ petition the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 21.02.2010. The writ petition was amended and challenge was sought to be raised to the order of termination. While admitting the writ petition on 02.09.2011 liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Competent Authority under the Department of Social Welfare. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred Appeal No.06/2011.

3.

Pursis has been filed on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner

2 207.wp.5354.10.odt has taken back the case papers on 27.11.2013 from the learned Counsel. It appears that the petitioner is not desirous of prosecuting the present proceeding as he is not represented by any Counsel thereafter. It is seen that on 05.05.2022 there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

4.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of as it has served its purpose.

5.

Rule is discharged. No costs.

(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.) RGurnule MANOJ MANDADE 17:19