Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

YUVRAJ DNYANOBA KOLHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court granted leave to withdraw the writ petition, disposing it as withdrawn.

Summary

Dr. Yuvraj filed a writ petition challenging his exclusion from a selection process. While the petition was pending, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) added his name to the list of eligible candidates, effectively granting the relief he sought. Consequently, his counsel requested permission to withdraw the petition. The Court considered the request and, recognizing that the petitioner no longer required judicial intervention, granted leave to withdraw. The writ petition was therefore disposed of as withdrawn.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition after the relief sought has been granted by the respondent.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • withdrawal
  • MPSC
  • eligibility
  • procedural law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:22067-DB



                                                (1)                          WP 5655 OF 2026


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.5655 OF 2026

                                 DR. YUVRAJ S/O DNYANOBA KOLHE
                                               VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                   …
           Mr. Vijay Y. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner
           Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondent/s – State
                                                   …

                                            CORAM       : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                                         (VACATION COURT)
                                            DATE        : 05.06.2026

           PER COURT :-

           .            Not on board. Taken on board.
           2.           Mr. Vijay Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that
           during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent – MPSC has
           incorporated the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for
           further selection process. He submits that in view of this, the purpose of the
           writ petition is served and the petitioner does not want to prosecute the writ
           petition any more. Mr. Patil, thus on instructions seeks leave to withdraw the
           writ petition.
           3.           Leave granted.
           4.           The Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.



                                                              [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
           PRW


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.