SITADEVI SACHINKUMAR AGARWAL ADV. MUKESH V. AIYA, PET,SHRI.HITESH P.VYAS,SMT. POONAM P. BHOSALE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ORS. — WP/1734/2004
Case under Other Act Section ---. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010058032004
Next Hearing
11th March 2005
Filing Number
WP/5957/2004
Filing Date
10-02-2004
Registration No
WP/1734/2004
Registration Date
17-02-2004
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SITADEVI SACHINKUMAR AGARWAL ADV. MUKESH V. AIYA, PET,SHRI.HITESH P.VYAS,SMT. POONAM P. BHOSALE
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ORS.
THE CONTROLLER OF RATIONING ROYAL INSURANCE BUILDING
THE HONBLE SUPPLIES
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE
DUE ADMISSION
FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2005 | DUE ADMISSION |
| 07-05-2026 | FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS) |
| 23-04-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 06-03-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 18-02-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
Orders
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's persistent non-prosecution and lack of diligence. The petition, challenging a 2003 Controller of Rationing order regarding shop sanctions, had been dismissed once for default, restored in 2019, but remained unattended for years. The court found no reason to interfere after 22 years, noting no interim relief was granted and the petitioner appeared uninterested in proceeding on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's persistent non-prosecution and lack of diligence. The petition, challenging a 2003 Controller of Rationing order regarding shop sanctions, had been dismissed once for default, restored in 2019, but remained unattended for years. The court found no reason to interfere after 22 years, noting no interim relief was granted and the petitioner appeared uninterested in proceeding on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts