Bombay High Court
SHIRISH RATNAKAR KULKARNIversusTHE PRINCIPAL, B.N.N.COLLEGE, THANE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- M M SATHAYE
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Shirish Ratnakar Kulkarni, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Grievance Committee that dismissed his appeal against an oral termination on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The petition was admitted in August 2006 but no interim relief was granted. During the hearing on 7 July 2026, the petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment to obtain instructions, but later reported that the petitioner had left the address without informing the court or counsel, providing only a speed‑post receipt and tracking report. The court held that the petitioner's abandonment amounted to non‑prosecution. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and any interim relief vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition challenging the Grievance Committee's order survives despite the petitioner's alleged abandonment
- Whether the petitioner's failure to appear or provide instructions constitutes non‑prosecution warranting dismissal
Subjects
- non-prosecution
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
- grievance committee
- oral termination
Judgment
8-WP-3440-2005.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3440 OF 2005
Shirish Ratnakar Kulkarni ...Petitioner
Versus
The Principal, B.N.N.College, Thane And Ors. ...Respondents
SNEHA ****
NITIN
CHAVAN Mr. Vedant Bende i/b Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Petitioner.
Digitally signed Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Smt. S.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent/State.
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date:
****
2026.07.07
17:25:20 +0530
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 7th JULY, 2026
P.C. :
1. The petition is filed challenging the order of the Grievance
Committee (for entertaining the complaints of Shikshan Sevak) by
which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging the oral
termination has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2. Record indicates that petition was admitted in August 2006,
however no interim relief was granted.
3. On 16.06.2026, learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought
adjournment to take instructions as to whether the challenge in the
petition will survive.
4. Today, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has
no instructions. However, he has placed on record original receipt of a
communication by speed post and postal tracking report and the
original packet received back by the Advocate. The same are taken on
record and marked as ‘X (Colly)’.
5. The tracking report indicates that the addressee has left
without instructions and the endorsement on the packet is also the
same. The address on which communication was sent is the same
Sneha Chavan 1
8-WP-3440-2005.doc
address under which the petitioner filed petition.
6. The Petitioner seems to have left address without informing
the Court or his Advocate. Nothing more can be done by the Advocate.
7. Above situation amounts to non-prosecution.
8. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim/ad-
interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
9. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 2
Checking your session…