Amolkumar S/O Madanmohan Jaiswal vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Collector, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8218 Bom

 Judgment.                                                   wp2173.12
                                  1




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



                   WRIT PETITION NO. 2173  OF 2012.


          Amolkumar s/o Madanmohan Jaiswal, 
          Aged about 29 years, Occ -
          Cultivator, r/o. Mishra Lane,
          Sadar  Bazar, Paratwada, Tq. Achalpur,
          District Amravati.                  .... PETITIONER.


                               VERSUS 

      1. State of Maharashtra,
         through the Collector, Akola.

      2. Special District Social Welfare
         Officer, Social Justice Department,
         having their office at Collector
         Office, Akola.

      3. Manik Kisanrao Gawai,
         Aged about 36 years, Occ - Labour.

      4. Sau. Nanda Manik Gawai,
         Aged about 34 years, Occ - Labour.

      5. Rajkumar Kisanrao Gawai,
         Aged about 45 years, Occ - Labour.

      6. Sau. Ratna Rajkumar Gawai,
         Aged about 36 years, Occ - Labour.




::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2017 00:10:42 :::
  Judgment.                                                          wp2173.12
                                        2




          Above 3 to 6 r/o. Mauje Kinkhed,
          Tq. Murtizapur, District Akola.     ..... RESPONDENTS.


                         --------------------------

Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for Respondent nos. 3 to 6.

--------------------------

                               CORAM        :  B.P.  DHARMADHIKARI, 
                                                                    J.
                                                                      

                               DATE         :  OCTOBER 13, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT : 
  

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for respondents point out that

petition arise out of an interim orders passed in Civil Suit and

hence, in the light of judgment (2017) 5 SCC 533 (Ram

Kishan Fauji .vrs. State of Haryana and others), the petition

is not maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as

per his instructions, suit itself has been decreed and hence

challenge to interim order may not survive.

Judgment. wp2173.12

4. It is apparent that in the light of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, present petition under Article 226

cannot be looked into.

5. Even if cognizance for grievance is to be taken under

Article 227, if suit is already decreed, interim order passed

during its pending cannot now survive. Hence, even in that

perspective, challenge is rendered infructuous. Accordingly,

Writ Petition is disposed of as such. Rule discharged. No costs.

JUDGE

Rgd.