Bombay High Court
SARVA DHARMIYA SUSHIKSHIT BEROJGAR HAWKERS SANGHATANA, THROUGH PRESIDENT AND ANRversusMUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SATARA THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The Sarva Dharmiya Sushikshit Berojgar Hawkers Sanghatana filed a writ petition challenging the Municipal Council of Satara's identification of additional hawking zones and seeking representation in the Town Vending Committee. The Council responded that two new hawking zones had been identified and that eight representatives of the petitioners were already on the Committee, rendering the petition unnecessary. The petitioners failed to appear before the Court on multiple occasions, including on 6 May 2026 and 12 August 2026, indicating a loss of interest in pursuing the matter. The Court observed that no further prosecution of the petition was forthcoming. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and the pending civil/interim applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when petitioners fail to prosecute a writ petition?
- Whether the identification of new hawking zones and existing representation in the Town Vending Committee negate the need for judicial intervention.
Subjects
- writ petition
- municipal council
- hawking zones
- Town Vending Committee
- want of prosecution
- dismissal
Judgment
11-9421-19-wp.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9421 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1999 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9421 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3922 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9421 OF 2019
Sarva Dharmiya Sushikshit Berojgar Hawkers
Sanghatana, Through President & Anr. ....Petitioners
Vs.
Municipal Council Of Satara Thr.
Chief Officer & Ors. ....Respondents
None for the Petitioners
Ms. Gunjan Shah (through VC) a/w Mr. Rahul Patil, advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl GP a/w Mr. Santosh A. Jadhav, ‘B’ Panel
counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 25 AUGUST 2026
P. C. :
1. Ms. Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1
IRESH
MASHAL
Digitally signed
and 2 submits that nothing survives in the Writ Petition as apart
by IRESH
MASHAL
Date:
2026.08.27
14:24:29
+0530
from earlier six hawking zones, two more hawking zones have been
identified by the Municipal Council Satara. She further submits that
one of the prayers in the Writ Petition is that representative of the
1 of 3
Iresh
11-9421-19-wp.doc
Petitioners be taken up in the Town Vending Committee, Satara
Municipal Council. She submits that eight representatives of the
Petitioners have already been included in the Town Vending
Committee. She submits that one more reason why this Petition
should not be entertained. She submitted a copy of the letter dated
14 August 2026 addressed to her by the Municipal Council, Satara.
The said letter is taken on record. The earlier hawking zones
identified are as under:
2 of 3
11-9421-19-wp.doc
and the new two hawking zones are identified as under:
2. None appears for the Petitioners when the matter is called out.
Even on earlier occasions on 6 May 2026 and 12 August 2026, none
appeared on behalf of the Petitioners. It seems that the Petitioners
have lost interest to pursue the Writ Petition any further.
3. Writ Petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
4. In sequel, pending Civil/Interim Applications stand disposed
of.
[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.] [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
3 of 3
Iresh
Checking your session…