Bombay High Court

PARMESHWAR KESU TAGADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: VIBHA KANKANWADI HITEN S VENEGAVKAR

Holding

The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the relief sought has already been granted.

Summary

Parmeshwar Kesu Tagad filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the court to decide his pending application before the State of Maharashtra. While the petition was pending, the underlying application was finally decided by the appropriate authority. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petition had become infructuous because the relief sought was already granted. The court examined whether a writ petition can continue when the subject matter has been resolved. Finding that there was no longer any live controversy, the court held the petition to be infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without further hearing.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition seeking direction to decide an application should be dismissed as infructuous when the application has been decided during the pendency of the petition

Subjects

writ petition
infructuous
procedural dismissal
court jurisdiction
application decided

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:12338-DB




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1647 OF 2026

                                  Parmeshwar Kesu Tagad
                                          VERSUS
             The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Another

           Mr. K. S. Solanke, Advocate for petitioner
           Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for respondent-State

                                             CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &
                                                     Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.
                                             DATE       : 18th March, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.             Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board.



           2.             Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that the petition was

           filed for direction to decide the application of the petitioner and during

           the pendency of the petition, application has been decided and therefore,

           the petition has become infructuous.



           3.             In view of the aforesaid statement, we dispose of the writ

           petition as has become infructuous.




           (Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)                 (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

           B. S. Joshi




           PB-6-WP-1647-2026.odt                                                  1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…