Bombay High Court

MINHAJ AHMED TAJ AHEMED HASHMIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: N B SURYAWANSHI VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Summary

Petitioner Minhaj Ahmed Taj Ahemed Hashmi filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The petition sought relief, but the respondent counsel submitted that the purpose of the petition had already been served. The petitioner’s counsel concurred with this submission. The Court examined the submissions and found no remaining issue to be adjudicated. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, effectively dismissing it.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous on the ground that its purpose has been served

Subjects

writ petition
infructuous
disposal
high court
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:16920-DB


                                                                         wp4203-25.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.4203 OF 2025

                 Minhaj Ahmed Taj Ahemed Hashmi                         PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others                  RESPONDENTS

                                               .......
                 Mr. Joslyn A. Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent - State
                 Mr. T. M .Venjane, Advocate for Respondent No.5
                                               ....…

                              [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                        VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. J.]

                                      DATE : 18th APRIL, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     Learned Advocate for Respondent No.5 submits that the

                 purpose of filing of this Petition is served.


                 2.     Learned Advocate for the Petitioner confirms the said

                 position.


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



                 [ VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV ]              [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
                           JUDGE                                     JUDGE

                 drp/wp4203-25.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…