Bombay High Court

DNYANESHWAR RAMESH RAUT AND OTHERSversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the Union of India and others. The petitioners' counsel argued that the petition should be entertained, but the court noted that a considerable passage of time and subsequent developments had occurred. The court held that these factors rendered the petition infructuous, meaning it could no longer achieve its intended relief. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous without addressing the substantive claims. No substantive merits of the petition were examined.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous due to the lapse of time and subsequent developments?

Subjects

writ petition
infructuous
limitation
dismissal
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:36747-DB


                                                                        wp2994-26.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.2994 OF 2026

                 Dnyaneshwar Ramesh Raut and Others                    PETITIONERS

                        VERSUS

                 The Union of India and Others                       RESPONDENTS

                                               .......
                 Mr. Vishal A. Bagal,Advocate for the Petitioners
                 Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondent - State
                 Mr. Rahul Bagul, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1
                                                ....…

                              [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                      DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, due to

                 passage of time and subsequent developments, the Petition is

                 rendered infructuous.


                 2.     The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of as infructuous.



                 [ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                   [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
                          JUDGE                                      JUDGE

                 drp/wp2994-26.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…