Bombay High Court

JITENDRA BALASAHEB JADHAVversusDISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

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

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as nothing survives in it due to non-circulation and the petitioner’s disinterest.

Summary

The petitioner, Jitendra Balasaheb Jadhav, filed a writ petition challenging a 20 September 2021 order that rejected his application for the transfer of respondent No. 3. The petition was never circulated after filing, and the court observed that the petitioner appeared disinterested in prosecuting the case. Given the passage of time and the lack of any surviving substantive claim, the court found no basis to continue the proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The order was pronounced by Justices Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Vaishali Patil Jadhav.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed on account of non-circulation and lapse of time, indicating petitioner’s lack of interest

Subjects

writ petition
non-circulation
delay
dismissal
court procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:15770-DB


                                                   {1}                    918-wp-849-2022

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     918 WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2022

                                     Jitendra Balasaheb Jadhav
                                               VERSUS
                                    District Collector And Others
                                                   ...
              Mr. N.S. Tekale, AGP for State
                                                 .......

                                          CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                   VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.


                                             DATE : 08th APRIL, 2026
              ORDER :

              1.       None for the petitioner even at the second call.

              2.       By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated

              20.09.2021 by which application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer

              of respondent No. 3 was rejected.

              3.       Since the date of filing of petition, the same was not circulated.

              It appears that petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the present

              petition. Due to passage of time, nothing survives in the writ petition.

              4.       Writ petition is therefore disposed of.



              (VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.)                 (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




              Bhagyawant Punde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…