Snehalata Shankar Khilare v. Mangal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal And ORS

Prasad Rajput IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16110 OF 2024 Snehalata Shankar Khilare .. Petitioner

Versus

Mangal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

.. Respondents ....................

 None for Petitioner.

 Mr. V.S. Tadake, for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

 Mr. Sumedh Modak, for Respondent No.4.

 Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.GP a/w Mr. Tejas Kapre, AGP for Respondent No.6 - State.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : JUNE 11, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

None for Petitioner.

2.

Heard Mr. Tadake, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 3; Mr. Modak learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 and Mr. Patel, learned Addl.GP for Respondent No.6 - State. 3.

By the present Petition Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "b) This Honorable court be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus order, direction or any other orders directions or appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No 1 to5 herein decide the Proposal sent by the Respondent No.3 to the Office of the Respondent Np4 Administrative Officer for her approval forthwith."

4.

At the outset, Mr. Modak, learned Advocate for Respondent and Mr. Patel, learned Addl.GP would submit that order dated 07.02.2023 referred to in the Writ Petition passed in Appeal No.52/2022 gave certain directions, out of which one of the direction pertains to deciding the proposal sent by Respondent No.3 to the office of Respondent No.4. Said proposal according to Mr. Modak who appears for Respondent No.4 has already been decided by order dated 15.06.2023, copy of which is placed before the Court. He would submit that in view of the above present Petition is therefore not maintainable.

4.1.

He would submit that if at all it is the grievance of the Petitioner that proposal is required to be decided then Petition would lie before the Division Bench in the facts of the present case. However, since proposal has already been decided, Writ Petition has become infructuous.

5.

It is seen that circulation of present Writ Petition was granted on 21.04.2025 for today and accordingly the matter is listed today. When the matter is called out, Advocate for Petitioner is not present today in Court. Petitioner is duly represented by Mr. Ambaji Rajayya Rayani, learned Advocate for Petitioner.

6.

In order to give one opportunity, copy of this order shall be served on the learned Advocate for Petitioner by the learned Advocate for Respondents. He shall be intimated about the next date of hearing.

7.

Stand over to 18th June, 2025. To be listed under the caption 'F.O.B.'.

P.R. Rajput [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]