Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NIRMALA SHUBHAM NAWALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The court recalled the earlier dismissal and disposed of the petition upon the petitioner's withdrawal, without costs.

Summary

Petitioner Nirmala Shubham Nawale filed a writ petition against the State of Maharashtra. The petition was initially dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner appeared disinterested. Subsequently, the petitioner's counsel tendered an unconditional apology for not being present, leading the court to recall the dismissal order. The petitioner then sought leave to withdraw the petition, stating it had become infructuous. The court disposed of the writ petition on these terms without awarding costs.

Issues considered

  • What is the effect of a dismissal for want of prosecution?
  • Can a dismissal order be recalled upon the petitioner's apology?
  • Is the petitioner entitled to withdraw a writ petition rendered infructuous?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • want of prosecution
  • recall of dismissal
  • withdrawal of petition
  • costs

Judgment

                                                                      22 - WP-1622-2023.DOC



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2023

Nirmala Shubham Nawale                                                         Petitioner

          versus

The State Of Maharashtra Thr
Its Secretary and Ors                                                     Respondents

                                  _______
Mr. Ravindra S. Pachundkar a/w Mr. Girish Gorakshanath Deshmukh, Advocates,
for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP, for the State.
                                        _______

                              CORAM:         AARTI SATHE, J.

                              DATE:          7th SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C.

1.            None for the Petitioner. It seems that the Petitioner has lost interest in

prosecuting the Petition. Dismissed for want of prosecution.

LATER ON:

2.            Mr. Ravindra S. Pachundkar, tendered unconditional apology that he

was not present when the matter was called out. The dismissal order passed some

time ago, stands recalled.

3.            Learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave

to withdraw the aforesaid Petition as the same has been rendered infructuous.

4.            Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.



                                                           (AARTI SATHE, J.)


                                        Page 1 of 1
Bharati


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.