2

Order - Status 8: C.A. NO.197 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15548 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.198 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15552 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.199 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15556 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.200 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15559 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.201 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15565 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.202 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15569 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.203 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15574 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.204 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15577 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.205 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15582 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.206 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15584 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.207 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15588 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.208 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15592 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.209 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15699 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.210 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15707 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.211 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15713 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.212 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.15717 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.215 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.19542 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.216 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.19545 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.217 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.19549 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.218 OF 2008 IN C.R.A.(ST.) NO.19557 OF 2008 WITH -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearances, Court's . orders or directions and . Registrar's orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.T.D. Deshmukh for the Applicants. Mrs.S.V. Gajare, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J . DATED : 21ST OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. : 1.In each of the above Civil Applications the reasons for delay of over two years is that the Petitioners were prosecuting a review application before the Collector. Whether that review application is maintainable or not is another matter. The review application has not been decided as yet. However, by way of abundant caution, the Petitioners have also filed these Civil Revision Applications. 2.In these circumstances, the delay ought to be condoned. 3.The delay in filing the Civil Revision Applications is condoned. Office to place the matters for admission.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5645 OF 2009 Mahesh Vasant Borse ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Respondents None for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . The matter pertains to the recruitment of the Police Constable. The petitioner has undergone the Selection Process and was not selected. Thereafter, he has filed this Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that he belongs to Other Backward Class Category and also possesses Non Creamylayer Certificate. His case should have been considered by the respondents in Other Backward Class Category. The respondents have filed an Affidavit in this respect and it is stated that at the time of the scrutiny of the document, the petitioner had not possessed Non Creamylayer Certificate and therefore, the petitioner had agreed to the inclusion of his name in the Open Category. Accordingly, he has given a statement to that effect. Therefore, he was considered in the Open Category. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the above Writ Petition. The above Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) ( S.B.MHASE, J. )

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 401 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 17334 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's orders : Court's or Judge's Orders _______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Parekh i/b. M/s. K.R. Parekh & Co., Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J DATED : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PC : Heard. Rule returnable after 6 weeks. In addition to service through Court, Advocate of the Applicant/s is also permitted to send private notice by RPAD or Speed Post AD and file Affidavit of Service only if acknowledgment is received or postal envelope is returned with remark "refused". The Civil Application will however be heard either after Court service notices are served or Respondent/s appear through Advocate by filing Vakalatnama on service of private notice. (G.S.GODBOLE, J)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST.NO.17334 OF 2011 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.K.R.Parekh i/b K.R.Parekh & Co. for the Applicant Ms Savina S. Baygera for the resp. nos.1,2,4 to 8 CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 18,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1,2 and 4 to 8. The application is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 2 In view of the averments made in the application, sufficient cause is made out. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). JUDGE

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4652 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, am, Court's or Judgo's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the petitioner. Ms M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for resp. nos.1 & 2. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : JUNE 27, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice, returnable on 11.7.2011. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 2. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4652 OF 2011 Subhash Prabhakar Patil ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. C. G. Gavnekar for Petitioner. Mr. P. M. Palshikar - 'A' Panel Counsel and Mrs. M. P. Thakur - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 27 July 2011. P.C. : Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the year of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Presiding Authorities) (Removal From Office Due to Misconduct) Rules. It is submitted that inadvertently it is mentioned in the petition that those Rules are of 1994 whereas they are of the year 1995. Leave granted. Appropriate amendment be carried out forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service on behalf of the Respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present petition the petitioner has raised challenge to the validity of sub rule 6 of rule 3 of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Presiding Authorities) (Removal from Office Due to Misconduct) Rules 1995. Sub rule 6 reads thus : "On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence shall be produced by or on behalf of the complainant. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the complainant and may be crossexamined by the Presiding authority against whom there are charges of misconduct. However no legal practitioner shall be allowed to appear on behalf of the complainant or the Presiding authority." The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 50 of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 deals with removal of President or a Vice-President. The petitioner is a President of Raigad Zilla Parishad and the proceedings are initiated against him on the ground of misconduct in discharge of his duties and therefore the procedure which the respondents need to follow is stipulated in Section 50 of the Act. It is contended that proviso to Section 50 contemplates that no President or Vice-President shall be removed from office unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to furnish an explanation. It is further contended that Section 274 of the Act gives powers to the State Government to make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, for the purpose of carrying in to effect the provisions of the Act. It is contended that sub section (2) also empowers the State Government to make rules for all or any of the following matters which are mentioned in sub section (2). It is submitted that Section 274(2) does not clothe State Government to make rule regarding removal of President or Vice President as stipulated in section 50 of the Act nor the State Government is competent to make rule inconsistent with the provisions of section 50 as per sub rule 1 and section 274 of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that to comply with the doctrine of natural justice as contemplated by provisions of section 50 before a President or Vice-President is removed from the office, the request made by the petitioner to permit him to be represented by lawyer at the time of inquiry is just, proper and is consistent with the provisions of Section 50. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the State Government has a power to make rules in view of provisions of section 274 sub sections (1) and (2). It is contended that sub clause (li) gives power to make rules in respect of any other matter under the Act and therefore the State Government is clothe with power to make rules even in respect of contingencies mentioned in section 50 of the Act. Sub rule 6 of rule 3 only prohibits legal practitioner to appear on behalf of the complainant or the presiding authority in the inquiry proceedings undertaken for removal of President or a Vice President as per procedure stipulated under section 50 of the Act, however petitioner will be given full opportunity to participate in the inquiry. It is therefore contended that the challenge raised by the petitioner to sub rule 6 of rule 3 is misconceived and bad in law. We have considered the rival contentions and also considered the relevant rules relied on and cited by the learned respective counsel for the parties. The questions which fall for our consideration are as follows: i. Whether the State Government is clothed with the power to make rules under Section 274(2) pertaining to contingencies stipulated in section 50 of the Act which deals with removal of a President or a Vice President? ii. Proviso 1 to section 50 contemplates that no President or a Vice President shall be removed from the office unless he has been given reasonable opportunity to furnish an explanation and therefore whether the concept of reasonable opportunity to furnish explanation includes such person can be represented by lawyer at the time of such inquiry or proceedings. iii. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the State Government may have a power in respect of the contingency as mentioned in section 50 of the Act, even then whether the State Government can make a rule inconsistent with the provisions of section 50 of the Act such as sub rule 6 of rule 3 of the Rules, which prohibits President or Vice President being represented by lawyer in such inquiry proceedings, whereas section 50 of the Act does not stipulate such prohibition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the circumstances the interim relief in terms of prayer clause (f) may kindly be granted during the pendency of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. Considered the rival contentions for grant of interim relief and perused the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Taking the over all view of the matter, though it is not possible to give findings on the issues involved in the present case at this stage, however, we are prima facie of the view that the case is made out for grant of interim relief. If the interim relief is not granted and if the inquiry commenced against the petitioner is permitted to go on the petition will become infructuous. Therefore we grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause (f) of the petition during the pendency of the petition. Considering the issue involved, respective counsel prayed that the hearing of the petition may be expedited. In the circumstances, hearing of the petition is expedited. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1822 OF 2009 Gulabidevi Jayantiprasad Santoshi. Versus Appellant. Jayantiprasad Shadalram Santoshi & Ors. Respondents. Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. I CORAM : A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER,2009. P. C.: Issue notice to respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, returnable on 11th January, 2010. Humdast permitted. Sd/ (A. A. SAYED, J.) 1

Order - Status 10: vss THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's order or Directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders S.N. Fatima h/f A.M. Saraogi for Appellant Ι Mr.S.J. Ghogare for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J. DATED: MARCH 29, 2010 P.C.: The advocate for the appellant has not supplied the fresh address for serving respondent Nos.3 and 4. S.O. for two weeks. It is made clear that if respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not served within that period, the appeal to stand dismissed against respondent Nos.3 and 4. The advocate for the appellant may also serve them by private notice. Mr.Ghogare appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Order - Status 12: vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2009 Smt.Gulabidevi Jayantiprasad Santoshi ... Appellant V/s. Shri Jayantiprasad Shadalram Santoshi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.M. Saraogi i/b Sayed Nisar Fatima for Appellant Mr.S.J. Ghogare for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 12, 2010 P.C.: Mr.Ghogare, appearing for the respondents, points out that the impugned judgment in the present first appeal is a common judgment passed in four suits. The appellant had filed First Appeal No.1837 of 2009 in respect of S.C. Suit No.5495 of 2003. That appeal was dismissed on February 26, 2010. The learned advocate therefore submits that the same order must follow in the present appeal. Mr.Saraogi, appearing for the appellant, states that the appellant is filing a review petition in that matter and therefore these appeals should be adjourned. S.O. for four weeks. It is made clear that if the review petition is dismissed, the same order as was passed on February 26, 2010 in First Appeal No.1837 of 2009 will follow in the present appeal.

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2009 IN SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.5498 OF 2003 ......... Gulabdevi Jayantiprasad Santoshi Appellant Vs. Jayantiprasad Shadalram Santoshi and ors. Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi, for appellant. Mr.Sagar Ghogre, for respondents. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 7th JUNE, 2010. P.C. : Mr.Saraogi, learned counsel for appellants, states that against the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed in First Appeal No.1837 of 2009 a Review Petition is filed in this Court in the month of April, 2010. He states that he will serve copy of the said review petition on the learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2] The statements are accepted. List the First Appeal after four weeks. In the meantime, learned counsel for appellant will move the appropriate Court for deciding the review petition. S.O. for four weeks.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1822 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICAITON NOS.2852 and 2853 OF 2009 IN F.A.NO.1822 of 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. A. M. Saraogi, for the appellant. Ms.Anita Patil i/b S.J.Ghogre, for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 08/12/2010 PC: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr Saraogi, learned counsel for the appellant, prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to adopt appropriate remedy for redressal of her grievance. The First Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. While granting liberty, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on rights of the parties or examined merits of the case. If any such proceedings is filed by the appellant, same may be considered in accordance with law. The civil applications are also disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)