PRATIDNYA JAYESH SHINDE Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.R. Warma, the learned Counsel for the applicants. Heard Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no. 2.

(2.) Since it was mentioned to me that, Mrs. Mantri appears for the respondent no.1 i.e. the appropriate authority, the matter was kept back repeatedly, for enabling her to remain present and make submissions, opposing the Application. However, inspite of keeping the matter back repeatedly, and even after it is called out in the afternoon session, Mrs. Mantri is absent. As such, the Application is being decided after going through the same, the annexures thereto, and after hearing Mr. Warma, the learned Counsel for the applicants, and Mr. Palnitkar, the learned APP for the respondent no.2.

(3.) Rule.