Nawal Rajnikant Trivedi vs State Of Maha, Ministry Of Home And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 100 Bom

                                                                                  1                                                                wp2299.06

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


                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.2299/2006

Shri Nawal Rajnikant Trivedi,
age 37 Yrs., Occu. Business, 
R/o Near Hotel Rajdhani, Bajeria, Nagpur.                                                                                                                      ..Petitioner.

                        ..Vs..

1.         The State of Maharashtra,
           Ministry of Home, Mantralaya, 
           Mumbai -32.

2.          The Commissioner of Police,
            Civil Lines, Nagpur.

3.          The Municipal Commissioner,
            Nagpur Municipal Corporation, 
            Civil Lines, Nagpur.

4.          Shri Sanjay Rameshkumar Jawahirani,
            C/o Hotel Rajdhani, Central Avenue, 
            Bajeria, Nagpur.                                                                                                                       ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
            Ms. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
            Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




                                                                 CORAM :  Z.A. HAQ, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     5.1.2018.


ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Though the matter is shown as part heard on board today, again

none appears for the petitioner and respondent No.3.

2 wp2299.06

2. Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent No.4 states that

now the licence which is granted pursuant to the impugned order passed by the

Hon'ble Minister, is not required in view of the subsequent circular issued by

the Commissioner of Police. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the

challenge to the impugned order is rendered infructuous.

3. Accepting the submission made by the learned Advocate for the

respondent No.4, the petition is disposed. In the circumstances, parties to bear

their own costs.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.