All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Shri Jeevan Krishna Thakre. … Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Grampanchayat, Division Thane. … Respondents. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, R.M.Kolge for the petitioner. S.P.Thorat for respondent No.1. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND R.V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 9 th June 2014. P.C. : Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Issue notice to the respondents returnable after three weeks. Court's or Judge's orders In case the petitioner has not been relieved so far, by way of adinterim relief, we direct that the respondents shall maintain statusquo in respect of posting of the petitioner. (R.V.GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S.

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 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 : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 30 June 2014 One week time is granted for payment of Bhatta. If Bhatta is paid within one week, issue notice to Respondents returnable within seven weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 26/06/2014

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Shri Jeevan Krishna Thakre. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. ... Respondent. Rajesh M. Kolge for the petitioner. Shankar P. Thorat with Karan Thorat for the respondent. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 12th August 2014. P.C. : The petitioner has challenged his transfer order from Kalyan to Murbad. The petitioner's contention is that once the petitioner was transferred from tribal to nontribal area vide order dated 22nd August 2013 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, there was no reason for the Zilla Parishad authority to transfer him again to the tribal area. Learned counsel submits that the transfer of the petitioner is against the policy adopted by the State in respect of transfer of employees to the tribal and nontribal ares. It is submitted that the petitioner's wife is also serving and therefore the policy of the Government that couple be placed at one station is not followed while transferring the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that this transfer order is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and his family. It is made with malafide intention and against the policy of the State. The respondent State has filed affidavit of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. In paras 4, 5 and 6, the deponent has stated as under: "4. I further say that pursuant to the direction and order passed by this Hon'ble Court number of Thane Zilla Parishad employees have been transferred in the adiwasi area. Since right from beginning the present Petitioner did not take the experience in the adiwasi area he is transferred from Kalyan non adiwasi area, to village Panchayat Shirol Shahapur in the adiwasi area. The distance between Kalyan and Shahapur is about 30 km. and therefore there is no reason for the Petitioner to be aggrieved. The Petitioner is relying on the old government policy regarding the transfer order. And on the basis of the said policy the Petitioner is claiming that the Zilla Parishad employee should be in one place for a period of 10 years, however the said policy is changed by the recent government resolution dated 15.5.2014. Pursuant to the said resolution the period of 10 years is minimized and now the said period is from 3 to 5. Now it is compulsory for the employee to have a turn in the adiwasi area. In the year 2013 the Petitioners turn to go at adiwasi was to be implemented, however because of his request he was again shifted at Kalyan immediately and therefore the Petitioner cannot insist in one place. The Petitioner is also insisting that he should be transferred at the area and place where his wife is doing service at Ambernath, however at Ambernath no post is vacant for the Petitioner moreover the Petitioner already had done his service at Ambernath he was doing service for a period of fifteen years right from 12.4.90 till 13.7.2005. Therefore he is not entitled to be posted at Ambernath which is non adiwasi area. After the ambernath the Petitioner has done his duty at Kalyan, Bhiwandi in the non adiwasi area. And therefore it is obligatory on the part of the Petitioner to go at Adiwasi area and he should not insist again for the non adiwasi area. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner's service career shows that except some brief service in tribal area, he has served only in nontribal areas. Learned counsel submits that on the recommendation of the President of the Thane Zilla Parishad, petitioner's transfer order was cancelled. The policy of the Government is to transfer the employees to tribal areas so that they can provide services to the tribal areas. Learned counsel submits that the administration would, ultimately, suffer if this Court interferes in the transfer order of the petitioner passed by the administration in the larger interest of the tribal people. We have heard both parties and perused the record. We find that the petitioner, in his 15 years of service, has mostly served in nontribal areas and for a very brief period he served in tribal area. In the month of August 2013, when the petitioner was transferred to tribal area he approached the President of Thane Zilla Parishad and on the recommendations of the President his transfer order was cancelled and he was again transferred in nontribal area. The petitioner is discharging his duties as Block Development Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner was relieved from his duties from Kalyan in the month of May 2014. Thereafter the petitioner is on leave and some other officer is holding charge. It is unfortunate that the petitioner is not honouring the transfer order. The petitioner could have joined the transferred post without prejudice to his rights and subject to result of this petition. Taking over all view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and interfere with the transfer order. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2010 AGAINST WRIT PETITION NO. 4022 OF 2008 Kumbhar Tanaji Kalappa .....Applicant versus Siddharth Charitable Trust Malgaon road, Subhashnagar, Miraj & ors........Respondents. Mr.A.M. Joshi adv. for the Applicant. Mr. G.T. Kamble i/b A.S.G. Deshmukh adv. for the Respondent no. 1. Mr. R.M. Patne AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM: J. N. PATEL Acting. C.J. AND B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 8th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard. We are not inclined to intervene in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as a specific view has taken by the learned Single Judge considering the factual aspect. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (Acting. C. J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 4th April, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 25/04/2017.Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 13th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 04/07/2017. 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 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 10th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned 28/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Ashok M Saraogi For Applicant Mr.M.G.,Patil, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 14th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 19/07/2017, on Suppl. Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Ashok M Saraogi For Applicant M.G.Patil, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand Over to 28/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda and anr. …Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Anand Mishra i/b. Mr. A. M. Sarogi for the applicant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 21 JULY, 2017 P.C. : This is an application for modification of order passed by the Sessions Court. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court vide ABA No. 1114 of 2016. The said application was allowed by confirming interim order dated 24th June, 2016 passed by the said Court in that application on 10th August, 2016. As per the said interim order dated 24th June 2016, the applicant was directed to be released on P.R. of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only.) and like amount of one surety. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is not in position to make arrangement for solvent surety since the Sessions Court has directed the applicant to be released on P.R. of Rs.20,000/. The applicant prefers the present applicant for modification of order 24th June, 2016 passed by the Sessions Court. Considering the circumstances and the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant, order dated 24th June, 2016 can be modified. Hence, I pass following order; :: ORDER :: (i) Order dated 24 June,2016 passed by the Sessions Court in ABA No.1114 of 2016 which is confirmed by order dated 10th August, 2016 is modified and the applicant is directed to be released on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only.) with one or more sureties in the like amount. (ii) Application stands disposed of. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

Order - Status 8: SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8084 OF 2013 Shri Kiran Uttamrao Hole & ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shri Tukaram Genbhau Ambekar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Vasant Adsul, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th November, 2013. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition pertains to recording of mutation entry. It is now a settled position of law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish rights of the party and the same is recorded only for fiscal purposes. The parties are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated. A reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Another V/s. Daulat Singh reported in 1997(7) SCC 137. Sr.No30. Wp 8084.13 In the present case, the petitioner as well as respondents have filed civil suits and same are pending for adjudication. A mutation entry is always subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings. Suffice it is to observe that the Civil Court shall decide the rights of the respective parties independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the findings recorded by the revenue authorities in the proceedings for recording mutation entry. In the light of the above observation, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)

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.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.544 OF 2006 IN S.C.SUIT NO.2483 OF 2004 Malik Mohd.Qasim Noor Mohammed ...Appellant Versus Ammar Hussain Taqdir Shaikh & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.A.S.Uraizee with Mr.M.V.Singh for Appellant. Mr.A.H.Fernandes for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JULY 26, 2006. P.C. As the question raised in this Appeal is pure question of law and Counsel for the Respondents fairly accepts that there is no direct Judgment of this Court, issue notice for final disposal. Mr.Fernandes waives notice for Respondents. List on 18th October 2006. Interim protection granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 544 of 2006 Malik Mohd.Qasim Noor Mohammed .. Appellant versus Ammar Hussan Taqdir Shaikh .. Respondent ... Mr.A.S. Uraizee for the appellant. Mr. A.H. Fernandes for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 18th October 2006 P.C.: Mr.Uraizee learned counsel for the appellant reports no instructions and states that the appellant has taken away the papers from him. In order to give one more opportunity to the appellant, S.O. to 7th November 2006 for hearing on admission. (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 544 OF 2006 Shri Malik Mohd.Qasim Noor Mohammed. .. Appellant Versus Shri Ammar Hussain Taqdir Shaikh & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.H. Fernandes for respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 17th November 2006 P.C.: ... None present for the Appellant when called. Appeal is dismissed under order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (D.G. KARNIK, J) 1

Order - Status 16: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 544 OF 2006 ======================================================= Office Notes, Office Court's or Judges Orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances,Court's Orders or directions and Registry's orders. ======================================================= Mr. A.K.Kar for appellant. Mr.A.H.Fernandes for the Respondent 1 & 2. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 22nd February 2007. P.C. : As the Appeal is restored by separate order passed today, the same is taken on board by consent of the parties. Counsel appearing for the parties point out that parties have amicably settled the dispute on the terms reduced into writing in the form of Consent Terms. Consent Terms duly signed by the parties and their Advocates tendered and taken on record. Both Counsel submit that the Appeal be disposed of on the basis of the Consent Terms. Order accordingly. Counsel for the Respondents points out that Respondent has deposited certain amount in the lower Court. The appellant has no objectiion if the Respondent were to withdraw that amount. That liberty is given to the respondent in view of the consent given by the appellant. The respondent to apply to the trial Court for withdrawal of the amount/suit which application will be disposed of expeditiously. -- [A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.300 OF 2017 Devila K. Shah … Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2017 Manashi K. Shah … Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. … Respondents Mr. P.V. Dubey a/w. Bindu Gupta for the Applicant. Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th MARCH 2018 P.C.: Issue notice to Respondent No.1, returnable after four weeks. In addition to Court notice, the applicant is permitted to serve Respondent No.1 by way of private notice and to file an affidavit of service after Respondent No.1 is duly served. Stand over to 25.04.2018. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2017 Mansi K.Shah ..Applicant Vs Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Princekumar Dubey for applicant. Mr. Devang Lakhotia i/b Juris Consillis for respondent No.1. Mr. V.V. Gangurde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 25th APRIL 2018. P.C.: 1] This is an application for condonation of delay of 69 days in filing the application for leave to file appeal. 2] Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 3] The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the application. However, for the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.S.GADKARI, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6492 OF 2016 Mr. Sameer Sikander Nadaf …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6493 OF 2016 Mr. Jayhind Yadavrao Phadtare …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6494 OF 2016 Mr. Kailash Ashok Bhore …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6495 OF 2016 Mr. Shrikant Vithal Mhamane …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6497 OF 2016 Mrs. Jayshree Mohanrao Gudge …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6498 OF 2016 Mr. Shivaji Tukaram Ghadge …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6499 OF 2016 Mr. Subhash Ramchandra Gonjari …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 2016 Mr. Nitin Mahadev Veer …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6501 OF 2016 Mr. Bhimrao Baburao Ghodke …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6502 OF 2016 Mr. Bhimrao Maruti Dham V/s. …Petitioner Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6503 OF 2016 Mr. Abhiraj Dilip Nagmal V/s. …Petitioner Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6504 OF 2016 Mr. Ashok Dattaraya Bhore V/s. …Petitioner Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6505 OF 2016 Mr. Sachin Mohanrao Gudge V/s. …Petitioner Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …Respondents * * * * * Mr. P.N. Joshi i/by. Mr. S.M. Sabrad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Y.S. Jahgirdar, Senior Advocate i/by. Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye and Mr. Milind Prabhune, Advocate for respondents no.4, 8, 9, 10 and 14 to 27. CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 15TH JUNE, 2016. P.C. :- 1). Admit. The petitions are being admitted only for the academic purposes of deciding the scope of By-Law 40 of respondent no.3, Bank. It is made clear that, there are no interim reliefs granted in the petitions and the petitions are admitted only for consideration of scope of By Law No.40 of the by-laws of respondent no.3, bank. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6492 OF 2016 Mr.Sameer Sikander Nadaf ..Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6493 OF 2016 Mr.Jayhind Yadavrao Phadtare Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6494 OF 2016 Mr.Kailash Ashok Bhore Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6495 OF 2016 Mr.Shrikaant Vithal Mhamane Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6497 OF 2016 Smt.Jayshree Mohanrao Gudge Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6498 OF 2016 Petitioner Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6499 OF 2016 Mr.Subhash Ramchandra Gonjari Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 2016 Mr.Nitin Mahadev Veer Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6501 OF 2016 Mr.Bhimrao Baburao Ghodke Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6502 OF 2016 Mr.Bhimrao Maruti Dham Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6503 OF 2016 Mr.Abhiraj Dilip Nagmal Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6504 OF 2016 Mr.Ashok Dattatraya Bhore Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6505 OF 2016 Mr.Sachin Mohanrao Gudge Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents Mr.Amey Sawant i/b Mr.S.M. Sabrad for the Petitioners. Ms.Shraddha Pawar i/b Mr.Dilip Bodke for Respondent No.3. Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.6492 of 2016. Mr.A.P. Vanarse for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.6493 of 2016. Mr.M.C. Walimbe for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.6495 of 2016. Mr.P.P. Pujari for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.6497 of 2016. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 06th FEBRUARY 2020 P.C. The challenge of these petitions is to the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners by an order passed way back on 31st May 2016, which order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 10th June 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this Court in a batch of connected petitions being Writ Petition No.6494 of 2016 and others had granted Rule on 15th June 2016. However perusal of the said order shows that the said petitions were admitted, only for the academic purpose of deciding scope of byelaw No.40 of respondent No.3-Bank. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the contrary points out that one of the connected petitions being Writ Petition No.8060 of 2010 has been dismissed by this Court on 18th January 2017, in view of the fact that the election had already taken place. He further points out that based on the said order this Court has dismissed two other petitions being Writ Petition Nos.4511 of 2017 and 4513 of 2017 on 30th January 2020. Considering the circumstances and particularly having regard to the fact that the challenge is to the rejection of the nomination in May 2016 and the elections are long over and further having regard to the fact that the three connected petitions involving a similar issue have already been dismissed, I decline to entertain the petitions. The petitions are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Nilam Kamble Digitally signed by Nilam Kamble Date: 2020.02.07 15:49:05 +0530 The issue of the scope of the bye-law No.40 of the Bank, is left open. C.V. BHADANG, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10881 OF 2014 Shri. Ganesh Keshav Jog (since Decd) Through Lrs ....Petitioner V/S The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10937 OF 2015 Shri Bajirao Kisan Daundkar And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6301 OF 2015 Shankarrao Govindrao Rananavare ....Petitioner V/S The Collector, Kolhapur District And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6302 OF 2015 Govindrao Shankarrao Rananavare (since Decd) Through Lrs. ....Petitioner V/S The Collector, Kolhapur District And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6303 OF 2015 Ganpatrao Govindrao Rananavare ....Petitioner V/S The Collector, Kolhapur District And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11843 OF 2015 Shri. Kisan Vishram Kad ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2015 Smt. Droupadabai Uttam Shelke And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9233 OF 2014 Shri Kantaram Bhausaheb Kad And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Urban Development Department And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12580 OF 2015 Shri Gangaram Bhiku Daundkar Through Poa Holder Shankar Daundkar And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12588 OF 2015 Shri Maruti Ganpat Amle Through Poa, Shri Ashok Kad And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6205 OF 2015 Shri. Gulab Shankar Mhaske And Ors. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2016 Shri Baban Rambhau Mohite Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1028 OF 2016 Shri Rajaram Ananda Mohite And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2016 Shri Balasaheb Bhau Jadhav And Ors. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2786 OF 2016 Shri. Laxman Gajanan Mohite And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2788 OF 2016 Shri Gorakh Vasant Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2785 OF 2016 Shri Sukhdeo Murha Darekar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2790 OF 2016 Shri Rambhau Baban Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2784 OF 2016 Shri Sitaram Sopana Darekar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2016 Shri Devchand Laxman Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2789 OF 2016 Shri Namdeo Sakharam Darekar And Ors. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11228 OF 2016 Shri. Mohan Baban Palande Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Respondent Secretary And Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11224 OF 2016 Shri. Madhukar Balwant Palande And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11225 OF 2016 Shri. Sudam Ramrao Palande Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11231 OF 2016 Geetabai Vasant Palande ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, Dept. Of Relief And Rehabilitation And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11229 OF 2016 Narshing Narayan Palande Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Respondent And Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 14209 OF 2016 Chandrakant Alias Kaluram Sadashiv Mutke ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 13466 OF 2017 Shri. Bhairu Namdev Darekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6369 OF 2015 Bandu Laxman Salgar (since Decd) Through Lrs. Ganpati B. Salgar (since Decd) Lrs. Jaysing G. Salgar ....Petitioner V/S The Collector, Kolhapur District And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3554 OF 2016 Shri Bhagwan Genu Argade And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11659 OF 2014 Shri. Bapu Balu Dhangar (bandgar) (since Decd) Through Lrs. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8130 OF 2016 Ganpati Kedari Borage (decd) Through Lrs. ....Petitioner V/S Collector And Deputy Director For Rehabilitation And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9774 OF 2015 Anandrao Laxman Thorat And Ors Petitioner V/S State Of Maharashtra And Ors Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4804 OF 2015 Hari Ganpat Madne And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Manoj Patil i/b Suman Yashavant Lengare For Petitioner A B Vagyani Government Pleader Writ Cell R.no. 1 To 5, 7 And 8 Vijay Dinkarrao Patil R.no. 6 . Pallavi Potnis R.no. 12a, 12b, 12d And 12e ,13 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ DATE : 25th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 31/7/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10881 OF 2014 Shri. Ganesh Keshav Jog (since Decd) Through Lrs ....Petitioner V/S The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10937 OF 2015 Shri Bajirao Kisan Daundkar And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11843 OF 2015 Shri. Kisan Vishram Kad ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2015 Smt. Droupadabai Uttam Shelke And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9233 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12580 OF 2015 Shri Gangaram Bhiku Daundkar Through Poa Holder Shankar Daundkar And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12588 OF 2015 Shri Maruti Ganpat Amle Through Poa, Shri Ashok Kad And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6205 OF 2015 Shri. Gulab Shankar Mhaske And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2016 Shri Baban Rambhau Mohite Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1028 OF 2016 Shri Rajaram Ananda Mohite And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2016 Shri Balasaheb Bhau Jadhav And Ors. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2786 OF 2016 Shri. Laxman Gajanan Mohite And Ors Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2788 OF 2016 Shri Gorakh Vasant Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2785 OF 2016 Shri Sukhdeo Murha Darekar Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2790 OF 2016 Shri Rambhau Baban Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2784 OF 2016 Shri Sitaram Sopana Darekar Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2016 Shri Devchand Laxman Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2789 OF 2016 Shri Namdeo Sakharam Darekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 13466 OF 2017 Shri. Bhairu Namdev Darekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3554 OF 2016 Shri Bhagwan Genu Argade And Ors Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors Respondent Manoj Patil i/b Mrs Suman Yashavant Lengare For Petitioner AB VagyaniGovernment Pleader with P G Sawant,AGP with Ms G R Golatkar Asst AGP for State 1 To 5, 7 And 8 Vijay Dinkarrao Patil R.no. 6 Pallavi Potnis R.no. 13 Pallavi Potnis R.no. 12a, 12b, 12d And 12e For Respondent CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ DATE : 11th September, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 25/09/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10881 OF 2014 Shri. Ganesh Keshav Jog (since Decd) Through Lrs ....Petitioner V/S The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10937 OF 2015 Shri Bajirao Kisan Daundkar And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11843 OF 2015 Shri. Kisan Vishram Kad ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2015 Smt. Droupadabai Uttam Shelke And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9233 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12580 OF 2015 Shri Gangaram Bhiku Daundkar Through Poa Holder Shankar Daundkar And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12588 OF 2015 Shri Maruti Ganpat Amle Through Poa, Shri Ashok Kad And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6205 OF 2015 Shri. Gulab Shankar Mhaske And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2016 Shri Baban Rambhau Mohite Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1028 OF 2016 Shri Rajaram Ananda Mohite And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2016 Shri Balasaheb Bhau Jadhav And Ors. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2786 OF 2016 Shri. Laxman Gajanan Mohite And Ors Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2788 OF 2016 Shri Gorakh Vasant Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2785 OF 2016 Shri Sukhdeo Murha Darekar Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2790 OF 2016 Shri Rambhau Baban Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2784 OF 2016 Shri Sitaram Sopana Darekar Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2016 Shri Devchand Laxman Hargude ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2789 OF 2016 Shri Namdeo Sakharam Darekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 13466 OF 2017 Shri. Bhairu Namdev Darekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3554 OF 2016 Shri Bhagwan Genu Argade And Ors Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors Respondent R S Apte,Sr,Counsel with Manoj Patil i/b Mrs Suman Yashavant Lengare For Petitioner A B Vagyani Government Pleader with P G Sawant AGP with G R Golatkar & R S Sawant AAgP for R.no. 1 To 5, 7 And 8 Vijay Dinkarrao Patil R.no. 6 Pallavi Potnis R.no. 13 Pallavi Potnis R.no. 12a, 12b, 12d And 12e For Respondent CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ DATE : 25th September, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 26/09/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11659 OF 2014 Mr.Bapu Balu Dhangar - (since deceased) Through LRs. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 11225 OF 2016 Mr.Sudam Ramrao Palande. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 11224 OF 2016 Mr.Madhukar Balwant Palande and others. … Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 8130 OF 2016 Mr.Ganpati Kedari Borage (Decd) Through LRs. … Petitioners. V/s. Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 6303 OF 2015 Mr.Ganpatrao Govindrao Rananavare. … Petitioners. V/s. The Collector, Kolhapur District and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 6369 OF 2015 Mr.Bandu Laxman Salgar (since decd) Through LRs. … Petitioners. V/s. The Collector, Kolhapur District and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 6301 OF 2015 Mr.Shankarrao Govindrao Rananavare. … Petitioner. V/s. The Collector, Kolhapur District and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 6302 OF 2015 Mr.Govindrao Shankarrao Rananavare (since decd) through LRs. … Petitioners. V/s. The Collector, Kolhapur District and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 4804 OF 2015 Mr.Hari Ganpat Madne and others. … Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 11229 OF 2016 Mr.Narshing Narayan Palande. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 11228 OF 2016 Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 14209 OF 2016 Mr.Chandrakant alias Kaluram Sadashiv Mutke. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Along with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 295 OF 2017 in WRIT PETITION NO. 14209 OF 2016 Mr.Aba Yashwant Deshmukh … Applicant. V/s. Mr.Chandrakant @ Kaluram Sadashiv Mutke. … Respondent. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 9774 OF 2015 Mr.Anandrao Laxman Thorat and others. … Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION (Stamp) NO. 13466 OF 2017 Mr.Bhairu Namdeo Darekar and others. … Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Along with WRIT PETITION NO. 3554 OF 2016 Mr.Bhagwan Genu Argade and others. … Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. 3 sr.2 WP 11659-14 wt group....doc Mr.Sanjeev Kadam for the Petitioner in WP No.11659/2014. Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for Petitioners in WP No.4804 /2015. Mr.Vivek Salunkhe, for Petitioners in W.P. Nos.6301/2015, 6302/2016, 6303/2016 and 6369/2015. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar i/b Mr.Swapnil Mohite, for Petitioners in W.P. Nos.11224/2016, 11225/2016, 11228/2016, 11229/2016 and 11231/2016. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar i/b Mr.Omkar Amberkar, for the Petitioner in W.P. No.14209/2016. Mr.A.B.Vagyani – GP a/w Mr.P.G.Sawant – AGP a/w Ms.Geetanjali Golatkar – AAGP and Mr.Rohan Sawant – AAGP, for the State. Mr.P.D.Dalvi for Respondent Nos.5, 6A to 6D in in WP No.11659 / 2014. Mr.Manoj Patil i/b Ms.Suman Lengare, for Respondent Nos.7 and 8 in W P No.4804/2015. CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 3, 2017. P.C. :- In this group of matters, since a common question of law arises, identical facts are involved and the reliefs claimed is the same, by consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petitions are disposed of by this common order. The learned counsel for the parties have also advanced common submissions. The Petitioners have filed the Petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking relief under section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Act of 2013'). They seek a declaration that acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The lands involved in these Petitions have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the resettlement of project affected persons. The resettlement of project affected persons is carried out under the provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act 1999. Notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued, thereafter followed by declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, Awards in all these proceedings were declared five years prior to 1 January 2014. Since relief is sought under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, it will be necessary to reproduce the said section for ready reference- Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 reads thus :- "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases- (1) ….......... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act; Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of landholdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Thus, three parameters are indicated in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. First, the award should be published five years prior to the date of commencement of the Act, which date is 1 January 2014. Second, the physical possession of the land is not taken. Third, the compensation is not paid. In all the Petitions, the State has asserted that State has taken possession of the lands in question. In some cases the State has placed on record that possession has been handed over to project affected persons. The Petitioners dispute this position. It is not possible for us to decide this contested factual issue of possession in these Petitions. However, in the case of Santosh Dnyaneshwar Aher v/s. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary & Ors. 1 Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that for application of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, it is enough that either of the contingencies exist. That is, the possession of the land is not taken or compensation is not paid. This position is amply made clear by the Apex Court in the 1 . Writ Petition No. 3238 of 2015 dtd 17/01/2017 case of Delhi Development Authority v/s. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. 2 . In all these proceedings, the State has either filed affidavits or has placed a chart on record which has been counter signed by the learned Additional Government Pleader. These documents show that the compensation has not been paid to the Petitioners and the same is deposited in Personal Ledger Account or Revenue Account. It is an admitted position that in none of these petitions, compensation has been deposited in the court where reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act will lie. The aspect of compensation as regards Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 has been dealt by the Apex Court in the cases of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v/s. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. 3 and Delhi Development Authority v/s. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. The Apex Court analyzed the provision of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and Section 31 of the Act of 1894. It was held that Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894, which envisages deposit of compensation in the Court, is a mandatory provision. As per Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894, if the compensation is not accepted or collected by the Claimant, the compensation has to be deposited by the Collector in the Court where the reference can be made under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The Apex Court construed the phrase "compensation has not been paid " occurring in Section 24(2) of the 2 . AIR 2016 SCC 4275. 3. 2014(4) Mh. L.J.566 Act of 2013 as being "paid" as per Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894. The Apex Court laid down that if the compensation is not paid as per Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894, then Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is attracted and consequences of lapsing of acquisition contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, will ensue. This view has been followed in subsequent decisions by the Apex Court and the Division Benches of this Court. In the result, the contention of the Petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed since the compensation is not paid as per Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, will have to be upheld. Accordingly, Writ petitions are allowed holding that the Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question have lapsed by virtue of section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Writ Petitions are disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE