Advocates:
['AMIT VASANTRAO BAND', 'N G DHOBLE', '', 'PRAKASH KESHAORAO DHOMNE', 'FOR/R-3', 'GP FOR R NO 1', '2 AND 5']

1 / 2 wp6466.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 6466 OF 2016

Madhusudan s/o Shrikrishna Pardikar

vs.

District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Washim and others

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

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram,

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

and Registrar'

s orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri. N. B. Dhoble, counsel for respondent No.3.

Shri. H. R. Dhumale, AGP for respondent No.1, 2 & 5.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE J

DATED : 02/12/2019

On 01/11/2016, this Court has passed

following order :-

“Heard Mr. Amit V. Band, the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

Issue notice before admission,

returnable on 22^nd November 2016.

Smt. Anuradha Taiwade, the learned

Assistant Government Pleader waives service

for respondents Nos.1, 2 & 5.

The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is a

guarantor, is ready to deposit Rs.1,50,000/-

within a period of ten days from today

without prejudice to the rights of the parties.

2 / 2 wp6466.16

The statement is accepted.

On depositing the said amount

within the stipulated period, before the District

Deputy Registrar, Washim, no coercive steps

would be taken against the petitioner.

Authenticated copy of this order

duly authenticated by Court Shirestedar be

furnished to the parties to act upon.”

2.

Today, when the writ petition is called out

for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the

petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3, submits that the petitioner has not

been able to demonstrate compliance of the aforesaid

order passed by this Court.

3.

The office note shows that the petitioner has

not placed on record anything to show that the amount

as directed to be deposited by the above order dated

01/11/2016, was indeed deposited.

4.

In view of the above, the writ petition is

dismissed.

JUDGE

KOLHE/P.A.