Chandrabhan Gangaramji Thote vs Principal Dist. & Sessions Judge
2017 Latest Caselaw 2888 Bom

                                                                                          wp101.11.odt

                                                      1

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

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.101/2011

     PETITIONER :               Shri Chandrabhan Gangaramji Thote, 
                                aged about 56 years, Occ. Service and 
                                working as Superintendent in the Court of 
                                Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha, Tq. Darwha, 
                                District Yavatmal.

                                                   ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENT :    Principal District and Sessions Judge, 
                     Yavatmal, Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Sr. Adv. with Mrs. Radhika Bajaj, Adv. for respondent   
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                                      ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : 07.06.2017

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

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against

the respondent - Principal District and Sessions Judge, Yavatmal to

consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Registrar of

District Court, Yavatmal after retirement of Shri Pundlik who was

working as Registrar, District Court, Yavatmal and was due for retirement

on 31.7.2007.

Shri Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondent states that since the petitioner has made a prayer for a

wp101.11.odt

direction to the respondent to consider his claim for appointment as

Registrar and no other relief is sought by the petitioner, the cause for

filing the writ petition would be rendered infructuous as the petitioner is

superannuated during the pendency of the writ petition. It is stated that

the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2009.

On a reading of the prayer clause and on hearing the learned

Senior Counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the cause for filing the

writ petition would be rendered infructuous on the superannuation of the

petitioner.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to

costs. Rule stands discharged.

                   JUDGE                                                                JUDGE




     Wadkar