All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 13th July, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 14/07/2023 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala and Associates …Petitioner Versus Nirmal Township "A" Co-operative Housing Society Limited and anr. …Respondents …...... Mr. Girish Godbole a/w Ms. Deepashikha Godbole a/w Kaushtubh Thipsay for the Petitioner. Mr. Shrikant D. Patil for the Respondents. …...... CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 14 JULY 2023 P.C. :- List on 4 August 2023. The parties shall remain present on the next date. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT Mr. Deepashikha Godbole for Petitioner Mr. Shrikant Dinkar Patil for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 4th August, 2023 P.C. : By consent S. O. to 25/08/2023 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 22nd August, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 13/09/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B.K. Jhala and Associates .....Petitioner Vs. Nirmal Township A Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and Anr .....Respondents Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/b. Ms. Deepshikha Godbole, for the Petitioner. Mr. Shrikant Dinkar Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : rd 23 OCTOBER 2023 P.C. Learned counsels appearing for the parties state that the parties are agreeable to explore the possibility of settlement, and they need some time. Mr. Godbole, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions of the partner of the petitioner, Mr. Kamlesh Jhala, who is present in the court, states that he is willing to discuss and sort out the differences with respect to the area to be transferred to the society. varsha The Chairman of the Society, Mr Borkar Jalinder Namdeo is also present in the Court. He agrees that the society's office bearers shall attend the meeting in the petitioner's office on 29th October 2023. On request of both parties, stand over to 2nd November 2023. [GAURI GODSE, J.]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala and Associates … Petitioner Vs. Nirmal Township A Co-operative … Respondents Housing Society Ltd. and Another Mr. Girish S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay and Mr. Deepshikha Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr. Kishore Patil i/b. Mr. Shrikant D. Patil and Mr. Arjun S.Pawar for Respondent No. 1. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 5 th FEBRUARY 2024 P.C. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 seeks some more time as the parties are still exploring possibility of settlement. Stand over to 21st February 2024. To be listed under the caption "For settlement". [GAURI GODSE, J.] RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2024.02.06 14:35:43 +0530

Order - Status 16: 8-wp-8512-2023.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B.K. Jhala and Associates … Petitioner vs. Nirmal Township A Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and Anr … Respondents Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/b. Ms. Deepashikha Godbole, for Petitioner. Mr. Arjun S. Pawar for Respondent no.1. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21 st FEBRUARY, 2024 P.C. :- Learned counsel for the respective parties state that parties are still exploring the possibility of settlement and according to them dispute is likely to be settled amicably. Hence, they request for some more time. Stand over to 8th March 2024. To be listed under the caption for 'Settlement'. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala and Associates … Petitioner Vs. Nirmal Township A Co-operative … Respondents Housing Society Ltd. and Another Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/b. Mr. Deepshikha Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr. Shrikant D. Patil for Respondent No. 1. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 8 th MARCH 2024 P.C. Learned counsels for the respective parties submits that talks for amicable settlement are still going on. Hence, they request for some more time. At their request stand over to 15th March 2024. To be listed under the caption "For Settlement".

Order - Status 20: 21.8512.23 wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala and Associates .....Petitioner Vs. Nirmal Township A Co Operative .....Respondents Housing Society Ltd and Anr Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/b Deepashika Godbole for the petitioner Mr. Shrikant D. Patil for respondent Smt. M. S. Bane, AGP for the State CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 15th MARCH 2024 P.C. Learned counsel submits that parties have exchanged the offers for settlement and they need some more time for exploring the possibility of settlement. Stand over to 1st April 2023. To be listed under the caption "For Settlement". [GAURI GODSE, J.]

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala and Associates … Petitioner Vs. Nirmal Township A Co-operative … Respondents Housing Society Ltd. and Another Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/b. Mr. Deepshikha Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr. Shrikant D. Patil for Respondent No. 1. Ms. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 1 st APRIL 2024 P.C. Learned counsels for the respective parties submit that the parties are unable to settle the dispute amicably. They make a request to fix the petition for hearing on admission. Stand over to 29th April 2024. [GAURI GODSE, J.] rrpillai

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE: 29th APRIL 2024 P.C. :- Iresh On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stand adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 61 to 70 18th June 2024 71 to 80 19th June 2024 81 to 90 21st June 2024 91 to 100 24th June 2024 101 to 110 25th June 2024 111 to 116 26th June 2024 118 to 120 26th June 2024 121 to 126 28th June 2024 127 30th April 2024 128 to 130 28th June 131 to 133 1st July 2024 134 3rd May 2024 135 to 140 1st July 2024 141 to 148 2nd July 2024 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT Ms. Deepashikha Godbole for Petitioner Ms. R. S. Pawar, AGP for State CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 24th July, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner , stand over to 29/07/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates. ...Petitioner. Versus Nirmal Township A CHS Ltd and Another. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Kaustabh Thipsay and Ms. Deepashikha Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr. Shrikant D. Patil for the Respondent No.1. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 29, 2024. P. C. : 1. Leave to correct pagination. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 seeks time to file reply. Let the reply be filed on or before 7th August 2024. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed on or before 12th August 2024. List on 13th August 2024 . It is made clear that time permitting, the petition will be heard finally at the admission stage. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 13th August, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 06/09/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT Mr. Ajinkya Taskar i/b Mr. Shrikant Patil for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 6th September, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 11/10/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 11th October, 2024. P. C. : TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2024.10.15 09:56:54 On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board dated 11th October 2024, stand adjourned as follows: - Serial. Nos. Next Date Sr. 32 To 51 rd December, 2024 (except Sr. 45) 3 Sr. 52 To 71 th December, 2024 (except Sr. 61) 4 Sr. 72 To 100 th December, 2024 (except Sr. 97) 6 Sr. 101 To 120 17th December, 2024 Sr. 121 To 140 18th December, 2024 Sr. 141 To 160 (except Sr. 155) 20th December, 2024 Sr. 161 To 180 rd January, 2025 (except Sr. 170) 3 Sr. 181 To 205 th January, 2025 (except Sr. 183,187,200) 6 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 6th December, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 25/04/2025. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 5th March, 2025 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 15/04/2025. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT Mr. Girish Godbole, Sr. Adv. A/W Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/by Ms. Deepashikha Godbole for Petitioner. Mr. Shrikant Dinkar Patil for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 15th April, 2025 P.C. : S. O. to 21/04/2025 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8512 OF 2023 M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates ....PETITIONER V/S Nirmal Township A Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. And Anr ....RESPONDENT Adv. Deepashikha Godbole for Petitioner. Mr. Kishor Patil i/by Mr. Shrikant Dinkar Patil for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 21st April, 2025 P.C. : S. O. to 23/04/2025 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 44: AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8512 OF 2023 B.K. Jhala & Associates … Petitioner V/s. Nirmal Township "A" Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/by Ms. Deepshikha Godbole for the petitioner. Mr. Kishor Patil i/by Mr. Shrikant D. Patil for respondent No.1. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 23, 2025 P.C.: Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate, on instructions from Mr. Kamlesh Jhala, partner of the petitioner, states that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file civil suit. The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is made that this Court has not adjudicated petitioner's grievance on merits, and it shall be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Civil Court by way of civil suit. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 16416 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 21 NOVEMBER 2016 Three weeks time i.e. 13.12.2016 is granted to remove office objections. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 21.11.2016

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.16416 OF 2016 Mrs. Janaki Subhash Sawant Petitioner Versus District Superintendent Land Record and others Respondents Mr. P. G. Kathane for the Petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 30th NOVEMBER, 2016 P.C. 1 Heard Mr. P. G. Kathane, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 11.01.2017. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Petitioner 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 principal contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the consolidation proceedings are sought to be reopened after a period of 45 years. The parties are put to notice that in view of the narrow controversy involved the Petition may be heard and disposed of (905)-WPST-16416-16.doc*.* finally at the admission stage. In the meantime, there would be adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (c). [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 16416 OF 2016 Mrs. Janaki Subhash Sawant ....Petitioner V/S District Superintendent Land Record, Sangli And Ors ....Respondent Mr. Pramod Gokul Kathane, for Petitioner. Mr. Manoj Ganpat Sawardekar, for R.No. 4A to 4K. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP, for R.Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Bharat A. Punekar, R.No. 3. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 22nd February, 2017 P.C. : S.O. to 8th March 2017 for admission. To be placed on supplementary board. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, to continue until then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 16416 OF 2016 Mrs. Janaki Subhash Sawant ....Petitioner V/S District Superintendent Land Record, Sangli And Ors ....Respondent Ms Anusha A Kale i/b Shri Pramod Gokul Kathane For Petitioner Shri Akshay Bobade i/b Shri Bharat A Punekar R.no. 3 Shri S D Rayrikar, AGP R.no. 1 And 2 CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 8th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 10/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: wpst1641616(908) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION St. NO. 16416 OF 2016 Mrs. Janaki Subhash Sawant ..Petitioner Vs. District Superintendent Land Record Sangli & Ors ..Respondents Ms Arusha A Kale i/b Mr. P. G. Kathane for the Petitioner Mr. M. G. Sawardekar for the Respondent Nos.4A to 4E Mr. S. H. Kankal AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. Akshay Bobade for the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 10th MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to amend so as to annex a typed copy of the impugned order. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out within one week. List the Petition for admission on 2132017, to be shown on the supplementary board. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3333 OF 2017 Mrs Janaki Subhash Sawant ..Petitioner Vs. District Superintendent Land Record, Sangli & Ors ..Respondents Mr. P. G. Kathane for the Petitioner Mr. S. D. Rayrikar AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. M. G. Sawardekar for the Respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(f) Mr. Akshay Bobade a/w Mr/ B. A. Punekar for the Respondent Nos.3, 5(a) to 5(f), 6(a) to 6(e) CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 21st MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 212016 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Sangli, by which order the application for condonation of delay filed by the Respondent No.3 came to be allowed. The said order has been challenged on the ground that the District Superintendent of Land Record has condoned the delay merely on the ground that the principles of natural justice require that such delay is required to be condoned. The District Superintendent of Land Record has not come to a conclusion that the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 have shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay running into 45 years for discretion to be exercised in favour of the said Respondents. The application filed by the said Respondent No.3 was in respect of correcting the consolidation scheme which has been implemented in Village Bhose, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli, as long back as in the year 1965. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 are the sons of one Dashrath Bandgar who had two other sons namely Laxman Dashrath Bandgar and Bhauso Dashrath Bandgar. It seems that Laxman and Bhauso have expired and their heirs are the Respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(f) and Respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(e) to the above Petition. However, the statements of the sons of the said Dashrath Bandgar were recorded before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year 1965 and it is the case of the Petitioner that the consolidation scheme was propounded on the basis of the said statement which was recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 2 The Learned Counsel for the parties i.e. Mr. Kathane for the Petitioner and Mr. Bobade for the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 sought to make submissions against and for condonation of delay. 3 In my view, it is not necessary to delve into the said aspect since the District Superintendent of Land Records, Sangli has without coming to a conclusion that sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been made out by the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 has condoned the said huge delay of 45 years. In my view, the interest of justice would be served if the impugned order dated 212016 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli for a denovo consideration of the application for condondation of delay. The parties may file additional pleadings if so advised before the District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli. The parties to appear before the District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli on 542017. The District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli thereafter may decide the application for condonation of delay by 155 2017 on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the instant order. Needless to state that the contentions of the parties are kept open for being urged before the District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli. 4 The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and is disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 579 OF 2004 The Principal, Mahatma Phule Mahavidyalaya & Anr. ... ...... Petitioners. Versus Mr.Purushottam Nathuram Desai & Ors. ... ... ... ..... Respondents. Mr. Aniruddha Pratinidhi for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2005. P.C.: Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted, returnable after four weeks. Notice to indicate that the petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 14251 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA VASANT KANKANWADI, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 12/12/2017. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari … Petitioner Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Atharva A. Dandekar for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ. DATE : 20th JUNE, 2017 P.C. . Not on Board. Taken on Board. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He states that notice of today's application has been served to the first respondent. He states that he will file an affidavit of service. We accept the statement. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 19th July, 2017. We direct the first respondent to depute the Designated Officer of the concerned ward to the site for ascertaining whether illegal construction as alleged by the petitioner is in progress. The Designated Officer shall visit the site within a period of three working days from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is served to the first respondent. 2 If the Designated Officer finds that illegal construction is in progress, he shall forthwith take steps in accordance with law for stopping the illegal construction and thereafter proceed to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction in accordance with law. 3 Compliance affidavit shall be filed by the Designated Officer before the next date. The first respondent to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 4 In addition to service through Court, private service is permitted. Along with private notice authenticated copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned respondents. (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA VASANT KANKANWADI, JJ DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 29/09/2017. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 11th January, 2018 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 02/04/2018. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Atharva A.dandekar For Petitioner Mr N. R Bubna for R.no.1 CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 12th January, 2018 P.C. : Not on Board. Taken on Board. No Order. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ..Petitioner vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner and Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Atharva A. Dandekar for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2018 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Mr. Dandekar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner states that he has served a notice to the advocates representing the Respondent No.1 as well as the Respondent No.4 of today's application. We accept the statement. Affidavit of service be filed within one week from today. He states that the Designated Officer of the Respondent No.1 has not complied with the directions contained in the order dated 28th June 2017. Place the Petition under caption "Direction" on 9th February 2018. We direct the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the Designated Officer of the concerned ward personally remains present on the next date along with the file. Advocate for the Petitioner to serve a copy of this order in the office of the Commissioner of the Respondent No.1 and the Commissioner shall act upon the said order. (P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 19: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Moh. Mukeem Ansari … Petitioner Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Atharva Dandekar for the Petitioner. Mr. N.R. Bubna for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Atul G. Damle, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 9 th FEBRUARY, 2018 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has produced for perusal of the Court a file containing relevant documents. The file shows that on 15th October, 2015 when the officers of the Municipal Corporation inspected the structure subject matter of this Petition (pages 79 to 83), construction of ground floor was in progress. It appears that further inspection was carried out on 16th October, 2015, when certain construction material was seized. It appears that on 4th November, 2015 a notice was issued to second and third respondents calling upon them to stop the construction. On 7th November, 2015 when the Municipal Officers visited the property, it was found that slab of the ground floor was laid which was not in existence on 15th October, 2015. On 8th March, 2016, when the Municipal Officers visited the property it was found that brick work of the ground floor and the construction of erection of columns of the first floor was in progress. Photographs taken on that date are also part of the file. It appears that prosecution was lodged against second and third respondents under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the MRTP Act, 1966"). There are further reports of inspection carried out by the Municipal officers and photographs taken during the course of inspection. It appears that construction continued on the site. The report dated 11th August, 2016 submitted by the Municipal officers of the inspection along with photographs show that RCC work of ground plus two floors was completed and work of third floor was in progress. 2 On 31st May, 2017 again inspection was taken when it was found that substantial work of ground plus three floors was completed. Some shops on the ground floor were occupied and the construction of fourth floor was in progress. There are subsequent notices issued by the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and in fact of 2nd June, 2017 hearing was fixed. It appears that FIR was registered vide C.R. 81/2017. On 7th June, 2017 an order was made by the Assistant Commissioner which is addressed to second and third respondents which holds that construction of ground plus four floors made by them is completely illegal. In terms of adinterim order passed by this Court on 12th July, 2017 the Municipal Officers visited the building. At that time, it was found that construction of ground plus five floors was completed. The work of plastering upto three floors was completed. Partial brick work of fourth floor was completed and brick work of fifth floor was in progress. It is pointed out that out of 13 galas on the ground floor, some have been occupied and some are kept closed. It is pointed out that some of the flats have been also occupied. The photographs taken on 24th October, 2017 have been annexed which show that substantial number of shops on the ground floor have been occupied and parts of the upper floors has been occupied. 3 It is true that the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against second to fourth respondents in which a limited injunction has been granted which prevents the second to fourth respondents from carrying out construction. The documents in the file prima facie show that there is no development permission granted to second to fourth respondents. The second to fourth respondents have proceeded with construction as stated above after 27th July, 2015. Apart from the fact that construction is grossly illegal it was completely in breach of the order dated 27th July, 2015 passed by the Civil Court. 4 The issue in this Petition is about inaction of the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation to take action of demolition against the illegal structure. Notwithstanding the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner, this Petition will have to be interfered as the documents produced by the Municipal Corporation prima facie show that notwithstanding several notices issued by the Municipal Corporation and notwithstanding grant of interim relief by the trial Court, the construction high handedly proceeded. The construction of ground plus five floors is completely illegal. Some of the premises have been permitted to be occupied. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents states that Shri Ethesham Ahmed Azmi is present in the Court on behalf of the second to fourth respondents. 5 At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents pointed out that in this Petition the grievance made is about illegal construction in respect of CTS No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 (part). The documents in the file to which we have made a reference indicate that the same are in respect of the land bearing Survey No.72/3, CTS No.342, Vetalpada, Bhiwandi. Thus, the structure subject matter of the documents in the file is on land bearing CTS No.342, Survey No.72/3 in respect of which no relief is claimed in the Petition. 6 We may note that in R.C.S. No.428 of 2015, the prayer sought is in respect of the land bearing CTS No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 (part) at village Nagaon, Khandupada. Therefore, second to fourth respondents were right in submitting that the file which is produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation does not relate to City Survey No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 or Survey No.82, Hissa No.3. 7 In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner is already pending in the Civil Court, we decline to entertain this Petition. However, we clarify that notwithstanding the disposal of the Petition, the Municipal Corporation is bound to take action in accordance with law for demolition of the illegal structure constructed on Survey No.72/3 of village Nagaon, (City Survey No.342) at Bhiwandi, District Thane. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of. (P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1167 OF 2019 = 2019 M/s. Suprim Engineering Versus Petitioner The State of Maharashtra and others WITH Respondents WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.13138 OF 2019 OF 2019 … M/s.Shalaka Polymers Versus Petitioner The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents Mr. Sachin Gite, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Bhende AGP for Respondent No.1. Ms.G.U.Shinde AGP for State. Adv.Khushbu Marwadi i/b Jay & Co. for the Respondents Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : A.A. SAYED & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : 18 OCTOBER 2019 1/1 P.C.: On the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitions are allowed to be withdrawn and to stand disposed of. The letters dated 16-10-2019 of the Petitioners to their Advocate are taken on record. (PRAKASH D. NAIK,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 7: ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6447 OF 2013 Smt.Ashwini Ravindra Pingle .. Petitioner Vs. Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Kamthe and another .. Respondents Mr.Avinash B.Avhad, for Petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01st August, 2013 P.C. : . The application for amendment in the written statement is rejected. Mr.Avhad, the learned Counsel for petitioner states that simply because, the matter is at the stage of final argument, that could not have been reason for rejecting the application for amendment. It was only at that point of time, the petitioner got the knowledge of the other properties owned by the plaintiff and given for redevelopment. The defendant had given details in the application, only because the defendant could not get the relevant documents, that could not have been the ground of denying the amendment application. According to the learned Counsel, the ground for eviction agitated by plaintiff is bonafide requirement. The said amendment would be relevant and material for effective adjudication of the dispute. The plaintiff had filed say to the application denying the said fact. The Court has observed that not a single document is produced along with the application substantiating the factum of the plaintiff possessing the survey No. 87 and given it for redevelopment. The parties have concluded the evidence. The plaintiff has even advanced his final argument. The matter was adjourned thrice for the argument of the defendant and thereafter, present application has been filed. The Court has considered the said aspect of the matter. I do not see any error committed by the Court while passing impugned order. The petitioner may assail the said order in case is required to file the appeal, if in law as it is permissible, relying on section 105 of C.P.C. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 909.wp.6447.13

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar s/o. Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashinath s/o. Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.C.Yeramwar for the petitioner in both the petitions. Mr.M.M.Pabale, AGP for the respondentState in both the petitions. CORAM: SHANTANU KEMKAR AND NITIN W.SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 14, 2018 P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable as per C.M.I.S. date. The learned AGP waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Reply to the petition be filed within four weeks. Steps of service of notice on respondent No.3 be taken within two weeks. Until the next date, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutinty Committee. List the matter as per C.M.I.S. date. (NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Ms Anita Gavkar i/by Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao For Petitioner Mr P.G. Sawant AGP FOR R.no. 1 To 3 CORAM : A.S. OKA & SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE, JJ DATE : 6th December, 2018 P.C. : Await Service. Stand over to 17/01/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao, Advocate For Petitioners in both WP Mr Y S Khochare, AGP for R.no. 1 and 2 in both W.P.; Mr Ramesh D Rane, Advocate for R.no. 3 in WP/6185/2018. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 21st January, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 04/02/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao, Advocate for Petitioners in above 3 WP. Mrs R A Salunkhe, AGP for R.no. 1 To 3 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 18th February, 2019 P.C. : Office is directed to place the matters HIGH ON BOARD ON 25/02/2019 along with WP/4649/15 and WP/6842/15. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc BDPSPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions & for Applicant in Civil Application. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE: 25th FEBRUARY, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2] All these Writ Petitions impugn the orders passed by Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioners of belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, all the Petitioners are members of one family. 3] It is the contention of the Petitioners that their blood relatives have been subsequently granted validity certificates. For a change, the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, in its affidavit, has come with a reasonable stand. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of validity certificates having been subsequently granted in favour of the Petitioner's blood relatives, the Committee is willing to reconsider the issue. 4] In that view of the matter, Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted to the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee for deciding afresh in the light of the validity certificates granted in favour of the blood relatives of the Petitioners. Interim protection, which has been granted in favour of the Petitioners by this court on earlier occasions, shall stand continue till decision of the Committee and, in the event, decision of the Committee is adverse to the interest of the Petitioners, (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc for further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 5] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 6] Since Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms, Civil Application No.3201 of 2015 taken out in Writ Petition No.6842 of 2015 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 16: (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc BDPSPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 (Modified as per order dated 8/4/2019) Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions & for Applicant in Civil Application. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE: 25th FEBRUARY, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2] All these Writ Petitions impugn the orders passed by Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioners of belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, all the Petitioners are members of one family. 3] It is the contention of the Petitioners that their blood relatives have been subsequently granted validity certificates. For a change, the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, in its affidavit, has come with a reasonable stand. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of validity certificates having been subsequently granted in favour of the Petitioner's blood relatives, the Committee is willing to reconsider the issue. 4] In that view of the matter, Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted to the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee for deciding afresh in the light of the validity certificates granted in favour of the blood relatives of the Petitioners. The Respondent – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter on remand within a period of three months from the date of uploading of the order. Interim (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc protection, which has been granted in favour of the Petitioners by this court on earlier occasions, shall stand continue till decision of the Committee and, in the event, decision of the Committee is adverse to the interest of the Petitioners, for further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 5] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 6] Since Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms, Civil Application No.3201 of 2015 taken out in Writ Petition No.6842 of 2015 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 17: (Prod)WP482917 & group.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 (Prod)WP482917 & group.doc. Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. DATE : 8th APRIL, 2019 P.C. 1] Not on board. Mentioned at 11:00 a.m. 2] Learned counsel for the Petitioners has moved this Court for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 25th February 2019. It is stated that after second sentence in 4th paragraph, the Court has dictated as under : " The Respondent – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter on remand within a period of three months from the date of uploading of the order. " 3] The contention appears to be correct. The said sentence be inserted after the second sentence in 4th paragraph. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] BGP. 2 of 2

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2006 Santosh Madhukar Chavan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Shashikant Samant for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 31/1/2006. P.C. Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. This petition impugns an order dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg below Exh.131 and 148 in Sessions Case No.3/4/5 of 2005. The crux of the matter is that during the trial certain witnesses who had made certain statements of facts in their police statements were examined. When they entered into the witness box, in their examination in chief they did not depose about the said facts mentioned in the police statements. However, in their cross examination a version which was contrary to what they had stated in police statement relating to those facts was elicited by the defence. On eliciting such a contradictory version in their substantive evidence, a contradiction with their earlier police statement was sought to be brought on record. This has been disallowed by the trial court on the ground that a statement of fact which find place in the police statement recorded in the course of the investigation cannot be used to contradict the different version which had been elicited during the cross examination of the witness in the court. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the rules relating to use of police statements in evidence. In short, the said section provides that when any witness is called by the prosecution in an inquiry or trial and the statement of such witness has been reduced to writing in the police investigation, then any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules relating to cross examination as to previous statements made by a witness in writing. It provides that a witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into :2: writing, and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Neither Section 162 nor Section 145 lay down any embargo to the effect that such a contradiction can only be brought on record in the examination in chief. It is well settled that the evidence of a witness consists of examination in chief, his cross examination as well as re-examination if any. In the absence of any embargo, it would be open to the defence to prove a contradiction, if any exists, between the police statement and the evidence which has been brought on record during the cross examination of the witness. The Trial Court in the present case appears to be of the view that the defence cannot be allowed to create a contradiction and then prove the same. There is no question of creation of contradiction. If within the parameters which define the scope of the cross examination, any statement is brought on record by the defence in the cross examination, then said statement is a part of the evidence and if their exists a previous statement of the witness which is contradictory then in my view, the contradiction can be put to the witness and brought on record. In the circumstances, in my view this is a case where rule will have to be made absolute. It has been observed in the impugned order that certain questions were improperly asked in the sense that they pertained to nature of the contents of the statement made to the police. It is made clear that the reasoning given hereinabove would not permit the defence to ask the witness directly about the contents of the statement said to have been made to the police officer. I am informed that the evidence of some of the witnesses in respect of whose evidence questions were disallowed, has been already completed. I am further informed that this application was moved principally because the defence may face similar difficulty in the recording of evidence yet to come. In view of the closing of the evidence of the said witnesses, it will be open to the defence to apply for recall of those witnessses and if any such application is made, the same may be dispose off on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly and the the petition is disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Order - Status 5: 24-WP-6807-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 Sanjay Hanuman Pandey .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents ******* Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P.Singh for Respondent No. 1-UOI. Mr. Y.D.Patil, AGP for the State. ******* CORAM: A. A. SAYED & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 13 th JUNE,2022 P.C. :- Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Bench. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.) YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Digitally signed by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2022.06.15 14:12:07 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 Sanjay Hanuman Pandey ....PETITIONER V/S Union Of India And Ors ....RESPONDENT Ashok M. Saraogi for Petitioner Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA, JJ DATE : 12th September, 2022 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner , stand over to 17/10/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 ……. Sanjay Hanuman Pandey … Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and Others … Respondents. Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Ms R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Anil K. Singh i/b Mr. D. P. Singh for Respondent No. 1. ……. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 25 September 2023. P.C. : The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that there are substantial amendments will have to be carried out to pursue the petition further. He states that the petition would be withdrawn and petition joining the correct parties and giving particulars would be filed. In view of this prayer, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn as above. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)