Bombay High Court

ANIKET SUNIL RAUT UNDER GUARDIAN OF FATHER SUNIL BABRUWAN RAUT AND ANOTHERversusCHETAN ANANDSING GIRASE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioners sought a direction for the Sub Divisional Officer, Osmanabad to decide their application for a caste certificate. The High Court noted that the direction had likely been complied with as the petitioners had not appeared after 2019. Since there was no further prosecution by the petitioners, the Court found no basis to continue the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution. No substantive merits on the caste‑certificate application were addressed.

Issues considered

Whether the direction to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the caste‑certificate application should be enforced
Whether the petition can proceed in the absence of the petitioner's prosecution

Subjects

caste certificate
non prosecution
petition dismissed
High Court of Bombay
sub‑divisional officer

Judgment

                                    (1)
                                                    912- C. P. 491-2019.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CONT. PETITION NO. 491 OF 2019
                          IN WP/568/2019

    ANIKET SUNIL RAUT UNDER GUARDIAN OF FATHER SUNIL
                BABRUWAN RAUT AND ANOTHER
                            VERSUS
                  CHETAN ANANDSING GIRASE
                               …..
AGP for Respondents: Mrs. Uma S. Bhosale
                               …..

                   CORAM :        SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
                                  VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.

                   DATED :        SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

ORDER:-

1.     None for the petitioner.



2.     The direction in this petition was to decide the application of

the petitioner by respondent No.2 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer,

Osmanabad regarding issuance of caste certificate. It appears that by

the passage of time, the aforesaid direction must have been complied

with, since the petitioner, after 2019, did not remain present.



3.     As such, the petition stands dismissed for non prosecution.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)              (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                  JUDGE

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…