Bombay High Court
SMT. VAIJAYANTI SADANAND TARUversusMULSHI DHARAN VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL, MALE (THORUGH ITS CHAIRMAN) AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to failure to serve the necessary party.
Summary
Petitioner Smt. Vaijayanti Sadanand Taru failed to appear before the Bombay High Court and did not comply with the court's order dated 21 February 2025 to serve copies of the petition on Respondent No. 5, a necessary party. The petitioner also did not file the required service affidavit for personal service permitted by the court. Because Respondent No. 5 remained unserved, the court held that the writ petition could not proceed. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution. No merits of the underlying claim were considered.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may proceed when a necessary party has not been served as ordered by the court
Subjects
- service of process
- non‑prosecution
- writ petition
- procedural default
- necessary party
Judgment
28-WP-10324-2017.docx
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10324 OF 2017
Smt. Vaijayanti Sadanand Taru … Petitioner
Vs.
Mulshi Dharan Vibhag Shikshan … Respondents
Mandal and Others
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH 2026
ORDER :
1. None appears for the petitioner. By order dated
21st February 2025 learned Advocate for the petitioner was
granted time to supply copy for effecting service upon
respondent no. 5.
2. Office remark shows that till date learned Advocate for
the petitioner has not taken steps to supply copies for
effecting service upon respondent no. 5.
3. Service affidavit regarding personal service permitted
by this court is also not filed on record. Respondent no. 5 is a
necessary party and the petition cannot proceed in the
Digitally signed
by RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
absence of respondent no. 5.
RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI Date:
2026.03.05
10:39:24 +0530
1/2
28-WP-10324-2017.docx
4. Since none appears for the petitioner and no steps
have been taken despite orders passed by this court to serve
respondent no. 5, the writ petition is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
2/2
Checking your session…