Pratik Prakash Nagapure vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11604 Bom

                                                                             18-wp-3284-20.odt
                                             1/2



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

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3284 OF 2020
  ( Pratik Prakash Nagapure Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary for Rural
                Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others )
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions            Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
                            Shri S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for petitioner
                            Shri Amit Madiwale, AGP for the respondent No.1.
                            Shri B.N.Jaipurkar, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

                                         CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                 ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 23rd AUGUST, 2021.

After hearing this case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to make a fresh representation to respondent no.2 by relying upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court at Aurangabad delivered on 11th March, 2020 in the case of Dyneshwar Musane Vrs. State of Maharashtra and other , reported in 2020 (3) ALL MR 550.

2. Leave with liberty as prayed for is granted subject to the condition that representation, if any, shall be made within two weeks from the date of the order and if it is so made, same shall be decided in accordance with law, in the light judgment of this Court dated 11 th

18-wp-3284-20.odt

March, 2020 rendered in the case of Dyneshwar Musane Vrs. State of Maharashtra (supra) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

3. We make it clear that the judgment delivered in the said case of Dyneshwar Musane Vrs. State of Maharashtra (supra) has attained finality as it has not been brought to our notice that it has been challenged by the State of Maharashtra before the Supreme Court and therefore, it shall not be open for the respondent no.2 now to rely upon Government Resolution dated 28th May, 2015 in order to reject the request of the petitioner for substituting his name in place of name of his mother, in the matter of compensationate appointment.

4. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

                                    JUDGE                                 JUDGE
sknair