Dilip Walmikrao Mankar vs Zilla Parishad Yavatmal Thr. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6387 Bom

    WP 5650/05                                                        1                         Judgment

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




                                                                                                    
                             WRIT PETITION No. 5650/2005




                                                                            
    Dilip Walmikrao Mankar,
    age 40 years, Occ.:Service,
    R/o Ralegaon, Tq. Ralegaon, Distt. Yavatmal.                                            PETITIONER




                                                                           
                                           .....VERSUS.....


    Zilla Parishad Yavatmal,




                                                        
    Through Chief Executive Officer, Yavatmal,
    Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.                                                              RESPONDENT
                                
                                    None for the petitioner.
                               
              Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.



                                           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 has challenged the transfer

order dated 17.10.2005.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could not have

been transferred from Ralegaon to Palaskund for a period of three years

or ten years, as the case may be.

WP 5650/05 2 Judgment

3. This writ petition came up for admission on 14.02.2006.

While issuing Rule, we had directed that the interim relief staying the

order of transfer would be in effect till the period, the petitioner's case

matures for transfer as per the rules governing his service conditions.

Since more than ten years have lapsed from the filing of the writ petition,

it is apparent from the prayer made in the writ petition that the cause for

filing the writ petition is rendered infructuous. Hence, we dismiss the

writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                  JUDGE                                            JUDGE
                             
    APTE