All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent Through post. None for petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JUNE 09, 2022 P.C. : . We appoint Advocate Mr. Pranot P. Pawar to represent the petitioner in the petition. Issue notice to the respondent. Ms. Mhatre, learned APP waives service of notice for the respondent and prays for three weeks' time to procure the instructions. At her request, stand over to 06.07.2022. Registry shall handover the complete set of papers to the appointed Advocate Mr. Pranot P. Pawar on or before 27.06.2022. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner V/s. The State Of Maharashtra. … Respondent None for Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia APP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 28 th SEPTEMBER, 2022. P.C. : At the request of learned APP, stand over to 30th September, 2022. [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT None for the Petitioner. Mr. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 30th September, 2022 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP for the Respondent - State, S.O. to 07/10/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner V/s. The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Shashikant P. Chaudhari a/w Mr. Pranot P. Pawar Appointed Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Ajay Patil APP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 7 th OCTOBER, 2022. P.C. : Learned APP on instructions from Jailor (Grade-I), Yerwada Central Prison, Pune submitted that, Petitioner expired on 6th May, 2017 while undergoing treatment at J. J. Hospital, Mumbai. In view thereof, present Petition is abated and accordingly disposed off. [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1771 OF 2010 Amit Anant Thite and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Venkatesh A.Shastry for Petitioners Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for State. Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 18TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. Writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. If an application for exemption is filed by the petitioners in the Trial Court, the same may be considered favourably and the presence may not be insisted unless it is absolutely necessary. petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.5102 of 2013. Mr Sandip Bharat Jangam & another ..Petitioners. Vs The State of Maharashtra & others ..Respondents Mr S.M.Oak i/by Sagar Joshi for the Petitioners. CORAM : CORAM : A.S. OKA, & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 18th June, 2013 P.C. Not on board. Taken on board. The challenge in this petition is to the order rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioners in the election of the village Panchayat. In view of the constitutional mandate, at this stage, no interference can be made by this Court. The petitioners will have to adopt the statutory remedy. By keeping the statutory remedy open, the petition is disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 of 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai Co-op.Soc.Ltd. ….Petitioner versus Controller of Rationing, Royal Insurance Building, Churchgate and ors. …Respondents Mr. S. P. Kanuga, advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, AGP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 13th JULY, 2016. P. C. : Having heard Mr. Kanuga, learned counsel for the petitioner, we direct learned AGP to file reply before the returnable date. Stand over to 27th July, 2016. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....for Respondent Sheroo Kanuga ....for Petitioner Mr. P.p. Kakde, Government Pleader, R.no. 1 To 3. ....Respondent CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 3rd August, 2016 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, Stand over to 10/08/2016. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....Respondent SHEROO KANUGA GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT CELLR.NO. 1 TO 3 CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 10th August, 2016 P.C. : Mentioned. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner Stand over to 18/08/2016. Ad-interim relief if any granted earlier to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM: S.S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED: 18th August 2016 PC: The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Civil Appellate Side C.M.I.S. Date Original Side C.M.I.S. Date 216, 217 28/08/16 218, 224 29/08/16 225 14/10/16 146 24/10/16 223 03/10/16 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 27/10/16 147, 204 07/04/17 215, 219, 220, 222, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240 15/11/16 141 23/12/16 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 100, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 06/03/17 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 221, 226, 227 07/03/17 141, 147, 168, 178, 204, 218, 223, 224, 237 16/09/16 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If the adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers and Halwai CSL ...Petitioner vs. Controller of Rationing and Others ...Respondents Mr. Sheroo Kanuga, for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2State. CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 30, 2016 P.C.: . Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. Issue notice to the Respondents. The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He seeks time to get instructions and file reply. Three weeks time as prayed for is granted. List the matter on 20th September, 2016. (MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : S.S. KEMKAR & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 2 0/09/2016 P.C.: The following matters on balance Board/Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed as per C.M.I.S. Civil Appellate Side C.M.I.S. Date Original Side C.M.I.S Date 38 27/09/16 63 18/10/16 32, 33,34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 11/10/16 35, 36 27/07/17 46, 47, 48 16/12/16 In any of the above matters, in case any ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, then the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....Respondent Sheroo Kanuga For Petitioner Mr.V.M.mali.Addl.Government Pleader Writ Cell R.no. 1 To 3 For Respondent CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. KARNIK, JJ DATE : 28th September, 2016 P.C. : Stand over to 01/10/2016. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai CSL ...Petitioner Vs. Controller of Rationing & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. P.P. Bhosale i/b. Mr. S.P. Kanuga, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the State Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :1ST OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. : Petitioner's Counsel seeks time to file rejoinder. 2 weeks time as prayed for is granted. List as per CMIS date. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai CSL Petitioner vs. Controller of Rationing and others Respondents Mr. Sheroo Kanuga for the petitioner. Mr. Manish M. Pabale, AGP, for the respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 3RD MAY, 2017 P.C. After it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no document placed on record to show that at one stage 187 authorised ration shops were attached to the petitioner, he seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to make an application/representation to the State Government for satisfying the State Government that earlier there were 187 shops attached to the petitioner and out of 187, only 107 shops have been again attached to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. All the contentions on merits are kept open. If such application is made, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously. (A. K. MENON, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan Bachav And Ors ....Respondent Shri Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner Mrs V S Nimbalkar, AGP R.no. 2 For Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 15th February, 2017 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn, stand over to 06/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal and others ..Petitioners Versus Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan Anandrao Bachav and others ..Respondents Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20th MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 Heard Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2 Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 17.04.2017. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Petitioners shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery on the Respondents and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3 The Respondent No.1 is directed to maintain statusquo as on date in respect of the land in question. 4 Leave to amend so as to substitute Exh.H with the correct Exhibit. Amendment to be carried out within one week. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1442 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal & Ors. ….. Petitioners VERSUS Gargi Packaging Industries & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Kiran Varma, i/b. Mr.Kishore Gaikwad for the Respondent no. 1. Mr.J. A.Madane, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 16th JANUARY, 2018 P.C . Learned A.G.P. states that his clients will file affidavit in reply and would also raise an objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that an alternate remedy exist against the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar. Affidavit in reply shall be filed within two weeks from today. It is made clear that no further extension would be granted. A copy of the affidavit in reply shall be served upon the petitioners' advocate simultaneously. Rejoinder if any, shall be filed within one week from the date of service of affidavit in reply and shall serve a copy thereof upon the respondents' advocates simultaneously. The petitioners are also directed to find out whether any alternate remedy exists against the order passed under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. S.O. to 13th February,2018 . [R.D. DHANUKA, J.] 1/1

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 13th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 13/03/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors Swapnil Mhatre i/b Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner S.H.Kankal AGP For R.no. 2 Kishore Gaikwad For R. No.1 For Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 23rd August, 2018 P.C. : Stand Over to 06/09/2018.Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 6th September, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned Stand Over to 27/09/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner P.J. Gavnane AGP For R.no. 2 Suhas Adhav i/b Kishore Gaikwad For R. No.1 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 27th September, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondents no. 1 & 3, Stand over to 19/10/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 19th October, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 19/11/2018 alongwith connected matters.Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 19/11/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J DATE : 18th April, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 24/06/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal & Ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. Gargi Packaging Industries & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. Pravartak Khatavkar I/by S.S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mr. C.D. Mali AGP, for the Respondent No. 2State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 24th JUNE, 2019. P.C.: Stand over to 15th July, 2019. 2 Adinterim relief, if any, to continue till then. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 30: Tandle IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1442 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal and Ors. ... Petitioners. Versus Gargi Packaging Industries and Ors. ... Respondents. . . . . . . Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for Petitioners. Mr. Suhas Adhav I/b Kishor Gaikwad for Respondent No.1. Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. . . . . . . CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2019 P. C. : By the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners had impugned Order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal/Tahsildar, Dhindori, i.e. respondent no. 2 herein, thereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 63(1A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short "MTAL Act"). At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 raised a preliminary objection and submitted that, against the impugned order, there is substantive alternate remedy available with the petitioners either before the Collector under Section 74 or under Section 76 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal of the MTAL Act and without availing the said remedy, the petitioners have preferred present petition directly before this Court. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions of the representative of the petitioners, who is personally present in the Court, submitted that, the petitioners will avail substantive alternate remedy available under the said Act. He submitted that, in view thereof, they may be granted leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to adopt alternate remedy. Leave and liberty granted. Writ Petition is disposed off with aforesaid liberty. Adinterim relief granted by order dated 20th March 2017, to remain in force for three weeks from today. It is needless to mention that, this Court has not adjudicated upon the issue involved in the petition and the petition is disposed off on the basis of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. In view of the disposal of the main petition Civil Application No. 1442 of 2017 does not survive and is accordingly stands disposed off. (A. S. GADKARI, J.) 2/2

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6819 OF 2015 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Memorandam of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Office Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R. P. Walvekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent – State. ….. ….. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND S.B. SHUKRE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 21, 2015. P.C. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition has become infructuous. The petition is disposed of as infructuous. (S. B. SHUKRE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.109 OF 2022 Jaya Talakshi Chheda Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents Mr. Taraq Sayed i/b Mr. Ajay Dubey, for the F Petitioner. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P for the Respondents. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 24 th AUGUST 2022 P.C. : The aforesaid petition has been circulated for withdrawal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. It is made clear that we have not heard the petition on merits. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2005 Jaiprakash Kailashnath Upadhyay .. Petitioner. V/s. Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti through the Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Mr.C.K.Thomas for for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.S.Apte for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 13th November, 2006. P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to furnish a copy of the appointment order on record. S.O. to one week. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J)

Order - Status 13: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4688 OF 2005. Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court's or Judge's orders appearances,Court 's : orders or directions : and Registrar's orders. : N.P.Bubna for the petitioner. C.K.Thomas for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 19th Septemeber 2006. P.C.: . Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to file service report on record. He is directed to file it in office. Office to verify. (V.C.DAGA, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2005 Jaiprakash K. Upadhyay .... Petitioner Vs. Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti & Ors. .... Respondents Shri N.R. Bubna for the Petitioner. Shri C.K. Thomas for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sarvasri M.S. Lagu i/b R.S. Apte for the Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 30, 2006 P.C: Heard. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 7-5-2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation, without disclosing sufficient cause for the same. The Tribunal has arrived at the clear finding that the services of the petitioner were terminated from 30-4-2002 and has disbelieved the claim of the petitioner that he was rendering services in the school till 16-8-2003 and therefore the appeal filed in the year 2003 has been held to be barred by the law of limitation. In spite of repeated queries, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out cogent material on record which could reveal the said finding of the School Tribunal to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record. Considering the limited scope for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such orders, and where the order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal discloses the finding arrived at on the basis of analysis of the materials on record and which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order. The discretion exercised by the School Tribunal while rejecting the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal also cannot be said to be either perverse or having been exercised in arbitrary manner. Mere reference to the letter of 16-11-2002 by the Education Officer or the affidavit of one of the assistant teachers of the school claiming the petitioner having been in employment till 16-8-2003 cannot prove that the petitioner had rendered services till 16-8-2003, particularly in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not allowed to sign the muster roll after 30-4-2002. The affidavit of the teacher, apart from making a bald claim about continuing service rendered by the petitioner in the said school during the period from 13-6-2001 till 16-8-2003, nowhere discloses as to what subjects the petitioner was teaching in the school and what was the time-table allotted to him. So also, the letter of 16-11-2002 of the Education Officer merely brings to the notice of the management about some complaint made by the petitioner on 8-11-2002 about refusal on the part of the management to allow the complainant to sign the muster roll as well as failure on the part of the management to pay the salary to the teachers. It does not specifically refers to the grievance of the petitioner himself as such. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the finding arrived at by the School Tribunal and it does not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is rejected. (R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/1130wp4688.5

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2009 Smt.Vijaya Arvind Kurne. ..Petitioner. Versus Smt.Jyoti Pramod Nigudkar, The President / Secretary, Suvidya Prasarak Sangh. The Head Mistress, S.P.S.'s Suvidyalaya. The Education Inspector, Brihanmumbai (West Zone), Mumbai. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. Mr.S.V. Pitre, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate i/b. Ameya Tamhane, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms.Indrayani M. Koparkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr.C.I. Khemani, A.G.P., for the Respondent - State. ... ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATED : 23rd JULY, 2009. P.C. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1981 in the school run by respondent No.1. She did her B.A. In 1990 and B.Ed. In 1991 and thus entered in category "C" in 1991. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress w.e.f. 20.6.2007. Respondent No.1 challenged the promotion of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal. By order dated 30th June, 2009, the appeal filed by respondent No.1 came to be allowed. Respondent No.2 – Management was directed to promote respondent No.1 to the post of Head Mistress in place of the present petitioner from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. A few admitted facts are as under : Respondent No.1 is from open category. She was appointed as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 2.7.1984 in category "C" in one of the schools run by respondent No.2 – Management. Respondent No.1 did her B.Ed. in 1979 and acquired M.A. Degree in the year 1982. Hence, on her appointment, she was placed in category "C". Respondent No.1 thereafter came to be appointed to the post of Assistant Head Mistress in Suvidyalaya w.e.f. 1.8.2008. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.2 runs three schools namely (1) S.P.S's Suvidyalaya, Borivali (West), (2) S.P.S.'s Mangubhai Dattani Vidyalaya, Borivali (East), and (3) S.P.S.'s Manohar Hariram Chogale Vidyalaya, Borivali (West). There are three posts of Head Mistress and two posts of Assistant Head Mistress in the institutions run by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 challenged the grant of promotion to the petitioner as Head Mistress on the ground that there were three posts of Head Master in the schools run by respondent No.2. Out of the three posts, two posts were occupied by Open Category and one post was occupied by reserved category candidate i.e. the present petitioner. The case of respondent No.1 is that as there were three posts and the petitioner being from the reserved category was appointed to one of the said posts, the reservation amounted to 33% which was against the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1987 and the Rules framed thereunder. The contention of respondent No.1 is that as per Rule 9(10)(A) of the M.E.P.S. Act there could only be 24% reservation in any institution and as this reservation had been exceeded there were violation of Rule 9(10)(A) and hence it was prayed that the promotion of the petitioner be set-aside and respondent No.1 be appointed as Head Mistress as she was first in the seniority list. The case of the Management is that one Mr.Manohar Waradkar was promoted to the post of Head Master. He belonged to Scheduled Caste. When vacancy arose in the post of Mr.Manohar Waradkar, the present petitioner who also belongs to S.C. was promoted to the post as per roster. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at all respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the order of promotion of the petitioner on 20.6.2007, it ought to have been immediately challenged by respondent No.1. He submitted that as the cause of action arose on 20.6.2007, it ought to have been challenged by respondent No.1 immediately thereafter. However, it was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing appeal on 1st January, 2009. As the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress on 20.6.2007 and the said promotion came to be challenged by respondent No.1 only in January, 2009, it is submitted that there is an inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.1 in challenging the order. He submitted that there was no explanation for this inordinate delay. Hence on the ground of delay itself the complaint ought to have been dismissed. As far as the aspect of delay is concerned, from the seniority list as on 1.8.2006, which is not disputed by any of the parties, it is seen that Mr.S.K. Khillare was the senior most and respondent No.1 was at Sr.No.2, whereas the petitioner was at Sr.No.22. As respondent No.1 was not the senior most teacher and as Mr.Khillare was the senior most teacher when the petitioner came to be promoted on 20.6.2007, respondent No.1 could not have challenged the promotion of the petitioner. As at that point of time, there was no possibility of appointing respondent No.1 to the post of Head in the place of the petitioner as respondent No.1 was not the senior most teacher in category "C" at that time. At that stage only Mr.Khillare could have challenged promotion of the petitioner. Hence, on 20.6.2007 when the petitioner came to be promoted, it could not be said that respondent No.1 was an aggrieved party as she was not the senior most and hence there was no question of respondent No.1 being promoted as head. Thus, there was no question of respondent No.1 challenging the promotion of the petitioner at that stage and it is only when she became eligible she has filed an appeal. As stated earlier, the main contention of respondent No.1 is that by promoting the petitioner, the reservation exceeded 24% which is in violation of Rule 9(10) (A) and hence the petitioner could not have been appointed to the post of Head. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that admittedly respondent No.2 runs three schools and there are three posts of Head and two posts of Assistant Head in the three schools, hence, if the three posts of Head and two posts of Assistant Head are taken together then in that case Rule 9(10)(A) which provides for 24% reservation is not exceeded. As far as this aspect is concerned, this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the decision dated 15.2.2007 in Writ Petition No.4723 of 2005 held that the post of Head Master and Assistant Head Master are different posts and the same cannot be clubbed together for adjudication of 24% roster. This decision has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the dispute. In the case of R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. and ors. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 430 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "40. We are not concerned with the reasonableness or otherwise of the percentage of reservation. 21% of the posts have been reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (sic Caste) candidates by the State itself. It, thus, cannot exceed the quota. It is not disputed that in the event of any conflict between the percentage of reservation and the roster, the former shall prevail. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the roster to fill up the posts by reserved category candidates, after every four posts, in our considered opinion does not meet the constitutional requirements." 12.In view of the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to see the percentage of reservation for the post of Head under the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. Rule 9(10) deals with reservation of the post in the cadres of Head and Assistant Heads in private schools. As per this rule, Management shall reserve 24% of total number of posts of Heads and Assistant Heads for the members of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes. As per this rule, only 24% posts can be reserved in the cadre of Heads and Assistant Heads. Undisputedly there are only three posts of Head in the respondent institute, therefore, if one post is given to the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste then it would exceed the limit of 24% prescribed under the law. If one post out of three posts goes to reserved category candidate, then reservation would amount to 33% which is not permissible under law. 13.The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a circular dated 5th May, 2009 wherein it is stated that reservation of 24% is increased to 33%. On perusal of the said circular, it is seen that it is to take effect on 8.10.2008, whereas the promotion of the petitioner took place on 20.6.2007. In such case, the said circular would be of no help to the petitioner. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in the pleading before the lower Court, no such ground has been taken by the petitioner that reservation of 33% would apply and in such case as there are three posts the petitioner can be appointed in a reserved post. 14.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.1 as the petitioner was appointed in 1981 and respondent No.1 was appointed in 1984. According to him, the Tribunal erroneously held that respondent No.1 is senior to the petitioner on the basis of the date on which the petitioner and respondent No.1 became qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Vaijanath s/o. Tatyarao Shinde Vs. The Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad & Ors. reported in 2006(6) ALL MR 823. He submitted that the decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the said decision covers cases relating to Rule 3(1)(a), whereas the case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 3(1)(b). To my mind the fact that the appointment under Rule 3(1)(a) relates to appointment in primary school and the fact that the appointments under Rule 3(1)(b) relates to appointment in Secondary School would not make any difference because the same ratio would apply. If this ratio is taken into consideration, it is seen that the respondent was appointed in 1984 as Assistant Teacher at that time, she was fully qualified to hold the post as she had the qualification of B.Ed and M.A. on the date of her appointment, whereas the petitioner though appointed in 1981 at that time she did not hold B.A. or B.Ed. qualification. She acquired the qualification of B.A. in 1990 and B.Ed. in the year, 1991. In such case, her seniority can only be counted from the date that she became eligible for the post. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the seniority cannot be counted from the date of initial appointment, but, it would be counted from the date that a person acquires the requisite qualification. Moreover, it is seen that the seniority list in which respondent No.1 was shown at Sr.No.2 and petitioner at Sr.No.22 was not challenged by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was at Sr.No.22, the said seniority list was not challenged by him because the candidates at Sr.No.1 to 21 were from Open Category and the petitioner who is at Sr.No.22 was the first candidate in S.C. Category and the petitioner was eligible for promotion as the petitioner was from SC category. 16.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vinayak Krishnaji Joshi (dead) by L.Rs. Nalini wd/0. Vinayak Joshi and others. Vs. Akola Education Society and others reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 68 wherein while considering the provisions of the said Act and the Government Resolutions dated 17.9.1980 and 29.3.1997, it was held that where the education – society is running two schools, one at Akola and the other at Murtizapur, having two posts of Head masters, the vacancies occurring in these two posts will be required to be filled in as per roster point in use at the time of occurrence of such vacancy and by rotation. Thus, the post of Head Master in either school may be reserved as per the roster point when vacancy arises, the cut-off date being 3.6.1977. It was further observed that the Apex Court in Prabhash Chan Jain vs. State of Haryana and others, 1996(8) SCC 105 , had rejected the contention that whenever there are two posts, same cannot be filled by applying the reservation policy and had held that it is possible to implement the roster even in such circumstances. Reliance was placed on para 8 of the said decision. While arriving at the said finding, and more particularly to the observation by the Apex Court in the said para to the effect that "However, while filling the posts, it is the vacancies which are to be taken into consideration and these vacancies have to be filled in, according to roster points". However, it is seen that this issue has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court and the decision of the learned Single Judge in Vinayak Joshi has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New English High School Association, Nagpur and another Vs. Baldev s/o. Fakira Ade and another reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 882 . After considering the decision, the Full Bench observed that "in Prabhash Chan Jain's case (supra) the Apex Court had not dealt with the issue about the applicability of roster on consideration of the percentage of reservation.". Thereafter the Full Bench held that "26. If out of two posts, one post is reserved by applying the roster, it would obviously exceed 24%. Besides, the reservation is not 24% in favour of any one particular category. The maximum reservation is in favour of the Scheduled Castes which is to the extent of 13%, whereas the minimum is 4% in case of the Denotified and the Nomadic Tribes. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, if the reservation in the categories of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes is considered as one unit, it would consist of 4% i.e. 8 out of 100. If there are only two posts, and one of them is specified for reservation in favour of the Denotified Tribes or the Nomadic Tribes, who are entitled for reservation to the extent of only 8 out of 100, it would virtually amount to granting reservation by 42% in excess of the statutory entitlement in favour of the said category, which is not permissible and it would be in excess of the reservation under the statutory provision. Similar is the case in relation to the Scheduled Castes which is entitled for 13% reservation. In other words, 26 out of 100 and even reservation of one post would be in excess of total reservation of 24%. Undoubtedly, the Constitution mandates implementation of reservation policy. However, at the same time, it assures opportunities to all the open class category candidates. The implementation of the reservation policy should not lead to absurd result. The application of reservation percentage has to be with reference to the number of posts. It is always to be remembered that the reservation percentage is to be applied and the 50 point roster is to be followed taking into consideration the total number of posts in a cadre and at the same time care has to be taken that other category candidates are not prejudiced in the sense that the statutorily recognized reservation percentage does not exceed while implementing the reservation policy. Undisputedly, the relevant rule requires 24% of reservation out of which 13% for the S.C., 7% for the S.T. and 4% for the D.T./N.T. Considering the 24% reservation, if one applies the 50 point roster, it would result in reservation in excess of the statutorily specified percentage. In a cadre comprising of three posts with 24% reservation rule, if one applies the 50 point roster, then the reservation even in respect of one post would exceed 24% reservation. One-third cannot be equated to 24%. It is settled law that the reservation cannot be allowed to exceed the percentage prescribed for reservation as it would result in injustice to the candidates falling outside the reservation category. Considering the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Somsing's case that 24% reservation can be applicable only in cases where there are minimum of four posts in a cadre and not otherwise." 18.In view of the above facts and in view of this decision, as the cadre consists of three posts of Head Master and total percentage of reservation at that time was only 24%, in such case, there could not have been any reservation and only in case if there were four posts then one post could have been filled in by a candidate from reserved category. Such is not the case in the present matter. 19.In view of the above facts , the decision of the School Tribunal, Mumbai dated 30.6.2009 is just, legal and proper. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner made oral request for stay of this order. Request is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]