Ishwar S/O Chintaman Pawar v. State Of Maharashtra Through Ministry Of Urban Development, Mubmai And Others

1 wp7177.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 7177 of 2016 Ishwar Pawar Vs. State through Ministry of Urban Development and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the petitioner Mr. Nikhil Joshi, AGP for the respondent No.1 Mr. S.A. Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.4 CORAM :MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : FEBRUARY 07, 2020 None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenged order dated 19/12/2016, passed by the respondent No.3 / Returning Officer, whereby objection raised by the petitioner to the nomination paper of the respondent No.4 was rejected. Notice was issued by this Court on 23/12/2016, for final disposal and it was directed that the result of the elections shall be subject to the result of this petition.

2.

On 24/01/2020, when this writ petition was listed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3.

Today, when the writ petition is called for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

2 wp7177.16.odt 4.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has appeared in the matter.

5.

The learned AGP has appeared for the respondents No.1 and 3 and submitted that election took place and in the said election the respondent No.4 lost.

6.

These circumstances indicate that with the passage of time, the writ petition itself has become infructous. It is perhaps for this reason neither the petitioner nor his counsel has appeared before this Court.

7.

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of as infructous.

JUDGE MP Deshpande