DINESH P. MARU v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
APL/1696/2019 · 2026-04-28
Shri Shivkumar Dige
body2019
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 3322 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 3322 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
4-APL-1695-2019 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1695 OF 2019 Dyaneshwar S. Kelaji ...Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1696 OF 2019 Dinesh P. Maru ...Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1697 OF 2019 Vaishali A. Dabholkar …Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Mr.Mahesh Kukreja a/w Mr.Salman Haidar Khan and Mr.Shivam Singh, for the Applicant. Mr.M.G. Patil, APP for Respondent-State. Mr.Anoop Patil a/w Mr.P.P. Chavhan i/b Ms.Komal Punjabi, for the Respondent-BMC. Mr.Jagannath Gavhane, AE-DP-R-II. Mr.Rahul Ishi, SE-BD-R-5. ____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 28th APRIL 2026 P.C. : . Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.05.05 14:18:02 +0530
4-APL-1695-2019 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble
learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Corporation.
2. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Corporation tendered copy of the instructions. It is taken on record.
3. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Corporation further submitted that the Respondent No.2 has decided to withdraw impugned notice issued to the Applicants under Section 353A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’ for short) and Applications will be filed in that regard before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and requested to pass appropriate order.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant, on submission of the
learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that, the Applications be
disposed of accordingly since it have become infructuous as the Corporation is going to withdraw the notice on which impugned order has been passed.
5. Considering the submissions of both learned counsel, the challenge in these Applications is to the issue process order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 471 of the MMC Act. As Respondent No.2 is going to withdraw the said notices, nothing survives in these Applications and I pass following order.
ORDER (i) The Applications are disposed of as infructuous.
4-APL-1695-2019 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble (ii) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)