Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZEDSIGNATORversusKEWALSINGH INDERSINGH SODHI

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous.

Summary

The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation filed two writ petitions (Nos. 10111 and 10119 of 2016) against Avtarsingh Indersingh Sodhi and Kewalsingh Indersingh Sodhi respectively. The petitions were initially not taken on board, but were later admitted. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matters had become infructuous and there was nothing left for the court to consider. The Court examined the submission and found no remaining cause of action. Consequently, the Court disposed of both writ petitions as infructuous. Any pending civil applications, if any, were also ordered to stand disposed.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate disposition of writ petitions when the cause of action has become infructuous?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • infructuous
  • municipal corporation
  • dismissal
  • civil application

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3487
                                                   1                         25 WP 10111-2016.odt


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 25 WRIT PETITION NO. 10111 OF 2016
                      AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS
                     COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
                                        SIGNATORY
                                          VERSUS
                               AVTARSINGH INDERSINGH SODHI

                                              WITH
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 10119 OF 2016
                    AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS
                  COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
                                           SIGNATORY
                                             VERSUS
                               KEWALSINGH INDERSINGH SODHI
                                                 …
             Mr. Atharva M. Pathan h/f. Mr. A.S. Pathak – Advocate for Petitioner
                                                 …
                                 CORAM           : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                      DATE             : 28.01.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.       Writ Petition No.10119 of 2016 was not on board. Upon being

             mentioned, the same is taken on board.

             2.       Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has

             become infructuous and, therefore, nothing survives for consideration in

             the present petitions.

             3.       The Writ Petitions stand disposed of as infructuous.

             4.       Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.



                                                   [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ]
             Pooja Kale/


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.