Bombay High Court

JAMES @ SONU SUDHAKAR RAMEILIYAversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE G M

Decided: 24 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous.

Summary

The petitioners in two writ petitions were absent when the matters were called, and their counsel was also absent on the earlier listing date. The respondent's counsel submitted that the amount ordered by the Railway Claims Tribunal to be paid to the petitioners had already been deposited with the Tribunal. Based on this submission, the court held that the writ petitions were infructuous and ordered them disposed. The court clarified that this order does not preclude the petitioners from filing an application before the Tribunal to withdraw the deposited amount. No substantive legal issues were adjudicated beyond procedural disposition.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate disposition of a writ petition when the petitioners are absent and the relief sought has already been effected?

Subjects

writ petition
procedural default
infructuous
Railway Claims Tribunal
withdrawal of amount
court disposition

Judgment

                                                                          06-WP-16541-2024.DOC




                                                                                       Rekha Patil

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 16541 OF 2024
                      James @ Sonu Sudhakar Rameiliya                  …Petitioner
                           Versus
                      Union of India and Ors.                        …Respondents
                                                  WITH
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 19526 OF 2024

                      Babu Govind Mahadik And Anr.                                …Petitioners
                           Versus
                      Union of India and Ors.                                     …Respondent

                      None for the Petitioners in both the Petitions.
                      Mr. Surekh Kumar, for the Respondent.


                                               CORAM:        SUMAN SHYAM &
                                                             ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
                                               DATED:        24th AUGUST, 2026.
                      PC:-


                      1.     The Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are absent when
                      the matters were called out. The Petitioners’ Counsel was absent
                      even on the earlier date i.e. on 27th June, 2026, when the Writ
                      Petitions were listed.

                      2.     Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the
                      Respondents has submitted that the amount which was directed to
                      be paid to the Petitioners by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal
                      has already been deposited before the Tribunal. Therefore, the
REKHA                 Petitioners can make an application to withdraw the amount.
PRAKASH
PATIL
Digitally signed by
REKHA PRAKASH
PATIL
Date: 2026.08.25
11:22:16 +0530




                                                        Page 1 of 2
                                               06-WP-16541-2024.DOC




3.    In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for
the Respondent, both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of as
infructuous.

4.    We make it clear that this order would not come in the way
of the Petitioner(s) to make an application before the learned
Tribunal for withdrawal of amount, in accordance with law.



(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)                      (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                                  {




                            Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…