Shrikrishna Gaushala Trust, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra & Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 6379 Bom

    WP 5842/05                                                       1                       Judgment

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                                 
                            WRIT PETITION No. 5842/2005




                                                                         
    Shrikrushna Gaushala Trust, Bajaj Nagar, Tumsar,
    through its Joint Secretary,




                                                                        
    Shri Dongarsidas Laxminarayan Saraf,
    aged about 65 years, occupation private service,
    R/o Durga Colony, Durga Nagar, Tumsar, 
    Dist. Bhandara.                                                                      PETITIONER

                                          .....VERSUS.....




                                                       
    1.
                               
           The State of Maharashtra,
           through its Department of Urban Development,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
                              
    2.     The Municipal Council, Tumsar,
           through its Chief Officer, Tumsar,
           District Bhandara.                                                            RESPONDENTS
      

                                      None for the petitioner.
           Shri A.V. Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
   



                                          CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A   NAIK  AND
                                                       KUM. INDIRA  JAIN, JJ.        

                                                     :      26  TH         OCTOBER,     2016.
                                           DATE       
                                                                  

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner had sought a declaration

that the action on the part of the respondent no.2 in recovering the

property tax from the petitioner is contrary to law.

WP 5842/05 2 Judgment

2. Though we had issued Rule in the writ petition by the order

dated 09.03.2006, the prayer for interim relief was rejected. In this view

of the matter, the petitioner must have paid the taxes during the

pendency of the petition. Since the taxes must have been paid, the

petitioner must not be interested in prosecuting the writ petition. That

appears to be the reason for the non-appearance of the petitioner. The

writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule stands

discharged.

                  JUDGE      
                               ig                                   JUDGE
                             
    APTE