Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sopan Gangaram Jamge, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The nature of the dispute is not detailed in the judgment, but it appears to involve supply-related matters. On the date of hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted, on instructions, that the petitioner desired to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition as withdrawn and discharged the rule. No legal issues were argued or decided on merits. The judgment is brief, consisting of only two paragraphs, and does not contain any analysis of facts or law. The court simply recorded the withdrawal and disposed of the matter accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Petition - Disposal as Withdrawn - The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition, and the court permitted the withdrawal, disposing of the petition as withdrawn and discharging the rule. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
Final Decision
The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of petition
- Disposal as withdrawn
- Rule discharged
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (11) 60
WRIT PETITION NO. 799 OF 2008
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, SUNIL K. KOTWAL
Shri P.P. Kothari h/f. Shri S.P. Katneshwarkar (for petitioner), Shri B.A. Shinde (AGP for respondents)
The State of Maharashtra, The Collector Hingoli, The District Supply Officer Hingoli, The Tahasildar Basmathnagar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, likely concerning supply-related matters.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought relief from the High Court against the State and other respondents, but the specific remedy is not mentioned as the petition was withdrawn.
Filing Reason
Not mentioned in the judgment text.
Issues
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted on instructions that the petitioner desires to withdraw the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
Not applicable as the petition was withdrawn without any adjudication on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, on instructions, that the petitioner desires to withdraw this petition.
As such, this petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2008. On 13th November 2017, the petitioner sought withdrawal, and the court disposed it as withdrawn.
