Kantilal Hemraj Hiran vs The Union Of India And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8373 Bom

RNG                                     1/3                        sr.222.rak.kmr

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO.6770 OF 2003

      1. M/s Kantilal Hemraj Hiren                } 
           deceased through his heirs

      1A) Lilabai Kantilal Hiren                  }
            aged 55 years

      1B) Prashant Kantilal Hiren
            aged 35 years                         }

      1C) Gautam Kantilal Hiren
            aged 33 years                         }

           All residing at Mahavir Path Naikwada
           (Muktangan) Post Manmad 
            Taluka Nandgaon District Nasik       }  .. Petitioners

      (Amendment carried out as per Court
      order dated 23.12.2005 in Civil 
      Application No.2992/2005 in WP 
      No.6770/2003) 

                         versus
      1. The Union of India                       }
          (Notice to be served upon the 
          General Manager, Central Railway        
          Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus,           }
          Mumbai-400 001.)

      2. The Station Master & Chief               }
         Goods Shed Superintendent
          Bhusawal Division at Bhusawal




         ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:17:02 :::
 RNG                                           2/3                        sr.222.rak.kmr

      3. Divisional Revisional Manager             }
          Solapur Central Railway
          Taluka District Solapur                  }..  Respondents
                               ...

None for the Petitioner Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondent nos.1 to 3.

                                        Coram  :    SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
                                                      RIYAZ I.CHAGLA, JJ
                                        Date     :    2nd NOVEMBER 2017

      ORAL JUDGMENT

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents not to insist upon one point loading of one rake in two parts and/or one rake as per Notification Order No.61 of 2000 annexed at Exhibit A.

The petition was filed in the year 2003. The policy in respect of open loading of the rakes must have been modified during the pendency of the writ petition. It is most likely that the petitioner must have lost interest in the litigation and that could be the reason for the absence on the part of the petitioner today.

In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

      (RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J)                             (SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J)





 RNG                                  3/3               sr.222.rak.kmr