Bombay High Court

SUNIL RANGNATH LOKHANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SACHIN S DESHMUKH

Holding

The petition is deemed infructuous due to the passage of time and is therefore dismissed.

Summary

Sunil Rangnath Lokhande filed a writ petition (906 WRIT PETITION NO. 8966 OF 2015) against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. Respondent No.7, represented by counsel Mr. Anandsing Bayas, contended that the petition had become infructuous due to the lapse of time. The Court examined the argument that the petition was barred by limitation. No substantive merits of the petition were addressed. The Court agreed with the respondent and held that the petition could no longer be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is barred by limitation and thus rendered infructuous

Subjects

limitation
infructuous
writ petition
high court
procedural bar

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:25699



                                                                 906 WP8966.2015
                                              -1-

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             906 WRIT PETITION NO. 8966 OF 2015

                               SUNIL RANGNATH LOKHANDE
                                          VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                             ...
                        AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. V. M. Jaware
                            Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 5:
                             Mr. S. S. Wagh h/f. Mr. S. T. Shelke
                     Advocate for Respondent No.7 : Mr. Bayas Anandsing

                                              ...

                                          CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                             Date : 02.07.2026

              PER COURT :-

              1.           Mr. Anandsing Bayas, learned counsel for Respondent

              No.7 submits that by passage of time Petition is rendered

              infructuous.


              2.           Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of as

              infructuous.




                                                    (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

              marathe

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…