Bombay High Court

SIMABAI DARBAR BHIL AND ANRversusBHARTI YOGIRAJ SONWANE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Summary

The petitioners, Bharti Yogiraj Sonwane and others, filed a writ petition challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners repeatedly failed to appear and prosecute the petition, despite adjournments and a final opportunity granted by the court. Respondents, including the State and two other parties, argued that the petitioner's inaction was causing prejudice, particularly to respondent no.3. The court observed that the petitioners had lost interest in pursuing the writ and consequently dismissed the petition, vacating any interim orders. The court also ordered that any restoration of the petition would be subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000 and disposed of the related civil application.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for failure to prosecute?

Subjects

writ petition
failure to prosecute
dismissal
civil application
costs

Judgment

                                1
                                               913-wp-10261-2024

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               WRIT PETITION NO. 10261 OF 2024

              Bharti Yogiraj Sonwane And Others
                            VERSUS
  The State Of Maharashtra Through District Collector And
                             Others
                               ...
Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State
Mr. R. B. Bagul, Advocate for respondent no.2
Mr. N. L. Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent no.3
Mr. Pranav Dhakne h/f Mr. A. N. Sabnis, Advocate for
Applicant in CA
                               ...
                             WITH
            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2368 OF 2025
                      IN WP/10261/2024
                              …..
                      CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                       DATED : 04TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C. :-

.         The orders dated 21.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 show that

consistently the petitioner has failed to prosecute the writ

petition. In the first order, the matter was placed for dismissal

on 03.08.2026. On 03.08.2026, in the interest of justice, a last

chance was granted to the petitioner to prosecute the writ

petition and matter was adjourned to 13.08.2026. Thereafter

the matter was listed today. Today also there is nobody for

petitioner to prosecute the writ petition.
                                2
                                                913-wp-10261-2024

2.      Mr. R. B. Bagul, learned advocate for respondent no.2

and also Mr. N. L. Chaudhari, learned advocate for respondent

no.3 appearing through video conferencing submit that only

due to pendency of this writ petition, respondent number 3 is

deprived of his legitimate claim.

3.      In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner has

lost his interest to prosecute the writ petition. Accordingly, the

writ petition stands dismissed. Any interim order, if was

passed, stands vacated.

4.      Further request for restoration of the petition shall be

subject to costs of rupees 25,000. In view of disposal of the

writ petition, civil application also stands disposed of.



                                    ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…