Bombay High Court
NILESH KASHINATH SHINDE AND OTHERSversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION LATUR THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is infructuous and is therefore disposed of.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging actions of the Municipal Corporation Latur. Their original advocate, Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde, was discharged and replaced by Mr. V.S. Bedre, while the corporation was represented by Mr. Tukaram Maruti Venjane. The petitioners alleged that notices sent to them were returned as unserved, raising a procedural grievance. The corporation contended that the petitioners had already been granted permanency in services, rendering the petition moot. Accepting this submission, the Court held that the cause of action was infructuous and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the grant of permanency in services to the petitioners makes the writ petition infructuous
- Whether the failure to serve notices to the petitioners affects the jurisdiction of the Court
Subjects
- writ petition
- permanency in services
- infructuous
- municipal corporation
- service of notice
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41463
1 950-wp-4577-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4577 OF 2019
Nilesh Kashinath Shinde And Others
VERSUS
Municipal Corporation Latur Through Its Commissioner
...
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Tukaram Maruti Venjane
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026
P.C.:
1. Learned advocate Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde has return the case
papers to the petitioners for engaging another advocate. The name of
learned advocate Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde also appears as advocate for the
respondent/corporation. The appearance of learned advocate Mr.
Suhas P. Urgunde is discharged for petitioners in view of appearance of
Mr. Bedre as advocate for the petitioners and also for the
respondent/corporation in view of appearance of Mr. Venjane as
advocate for respondent/corporation.
2. Learned advocate Mr. V.S. Bedre has placed on record copy of
communication dated 28.08.2026 issued to the petitioners along with
photocopies of the postal receipts and sealed envelopes of the
communication which shows that notice sent to petitioner no.1-Nilesh
Shinde is returned with endorsement “Not known”. The notices sent to
petitioner no.2-Sunita Valtate and Petitioner No.3-Shaikh Ateeq
2 950-wp-4577-2019.odt
Farukhmiya are returned unserved with endorsement “Insufficient
address”.
3. Mr. Tukaram Venjane, learned advocate for
respondent/corporation makes a statement that the benefit of
permanency in services is granted to the petitioners and as such, cause
in the petition is rendered infructuous.
4. Accepting the statement, writ petition is disposed of as
infructuous.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI J.]
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…