Bombay High Court
Manohar S/O. Pandurang Devgirkar vs Commissioner Of Police Office At ... on 6 December, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1 W.P.No.598.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 598 OF 2017
Manohar S/o Pandurang Devgirkar,
..VS..
Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Anr.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Aditya S. Pande, Advocate h/f Shri A. M. Jaltare, Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for respondents.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATED : 06.12.2021
1. Heard Shri Aditya Pande, learned counsel h/f. Shri
A. M. Jaltare, learned counsel for the petitioner. He
invites our attention to the order dated 18.01.2019,
passed by this Bench then headed by Shri P. N.
Deshmukh, J.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
even though the writ petition was dismissed as per the
order dated 18.01.2019 and it was assured that separate
reasons justifying the dismissal of the petition would be
recorded, the Bench comprising Shri P. N. Deshmukh and
Shri Rohit B. Deo, JJ. did not record any reasons
separately.
3. There is no judgment recording reasons for
dismissal available on record of the paper book of this
petition.
4. There is note taken in the Farad-sheet which reads
thus :-
"(Per Deo, J.)
Since, the Hon'ble Shri Justice P. N. Deshmukh
retired before signing the elaborate judgment,
the position is .....(illegible) to note judgment in
law and the matter be listed for re-hearing."
5. It appears that there are some spelling mistakes in
the note taken by the Registry in the Farad-sheet, but,
what is conveyed by the note is very clear. As per this
note, there being no judgment having been signed by
Shri P. N. Deshmukh, J. before his retirement, the
judgment of dismissal cannot be treated to be a judgment
in the eye of law and, therefore, this petition is required
to be listed for re-hearing.
6. It is thus clear that even though there is an order of
dismissal of the petition, there is no reasoned judgment
passed for supporting the conclusion of the dismissal of
the petition and as such, the conclusion of dismissal of
the petition is no conclusion in the eye of law. In other
words, there is no judgment in this case which has been
rendered in accordance with law and, therefore, this
petition is now required to be re-heard.
7. In the result, the order dated 18.01.2019 being
non est in the eye of law, this petition is taken up now for
re-hearing.
8. Heard Shri Aditya Pande, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Thakare, learned A.P.P. for the
respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
some time be granted for taking instructions from the
petitioner as there is a possibility of the petitioner
seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the petition.
10. Put up the matter on 08th December, 2021.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:06.12.2021
16:32
