AMIT BALASAHEB DHONUKSHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We find this happening now too often: matters are listed on mentioning, when circulation/listing is sought. In every case we are told that there is a urgency. We have now begun insisting that notice be given even of mentioning. Apparently, even that is not enough. This case exemplifies the perils of attempting to rely on the Petitioner's statement that notice has been given. Henceforth we may therefore consider either declining circulation altogether or declining immediate relief no matter how urgent unless the matter is formally listed on board and fully and properly served. Otherwise, the kind of mischief that we have now found in the present case will continue.

(2.) On 6/7/2023, the Writ Petition was mentioned before us. We were told that notice had been given but that none appeared for the other side. We made the following order.

(3.) Specifically, the 4th Respondent, the institution, the 5th Respondent, the school, and Respondents Nos. 6 to 12, the management, were not before us on that date.