All Cases

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 He states that the petition would be withdrawn and petition joining the correct parties and giving particulars would be filed. In view of this prayer, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn as above.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.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2006 Shri Devidas Sakharam Godge. ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.V. More i/b. V.S. Deokar for Petitioner. Mr.Mandar Limaye for Respondent No.2. Mr.R.D. Rane, GP for Respondent No.1. CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2006 P.C. :- . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned GP for respondent no.1 and learned Counsel for respondent no.2. . Learned GP seeks short adjournment of two weeks to take instructions and file affidavit-in-reply. . Place the matter on board after two weeks. (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2006 Shri Devidas Sakharam Godge. ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.S. Deokar for Petitioner. Mr.R.D. Rane, GP for Respondent No.1. Mr.Ashutosh Gole i/b. Mandar Limaye for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2006 P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 seeks a short adjournment to take instructions in the above and file an affidavit-in-reply. Matter stands adjourned by three weeks. Pending further orders, there shall be an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d). (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2006 Shri Devidas Sakharam Godge ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.S. Deokar for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D. Rane, Government Pleader, for Respondent No.1. Mr.Mandar Limaye for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : H.S. BEDI, C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J. DATED: 16TH OCTOBER, 2006. P.C. : . The learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contends that before the interim order had been obtained on 31 st August, 2006, the petitioner had already joined his place of posting. . We, accordingly, vacate the stay granted by Order dated 31 st August, 2006. Reply and Rejoinder to be filed before the next date. . S.O. to 20 th November, 2006. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.

Order - Status 18: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4924 of 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Vishwasrao S. Deokar for petitioner. Mr.R.D.Rane, GP for resp.no.1. Mr.Mandar Limaye for resp no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. December 06, 2006. P.C. .Petition isdisposed as withdrawn. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 5: spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune ... Petitioner. V/s. Shir Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Shekhar i/by J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 11th July 2011 P.C. 1 Issue notice to the respondents returnable at the end of eight weeks. Notice to indicate that the petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2 In addition to the court service, the petitioner is directed to serve the respondents by a private notice by hand delivery or by speed post registered AD and file affidavit of service on or before the next date. 3 In the meanwhile, it is clarified and ordered that the order of injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court shall not in any prevent the petitioner from initiating any proceedings in accordance with the law. The petitioner, however, shall not disturb the possession of the respondents nor evict them except by due process of law. (D.G.KARNIK, J) .....

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune .. Petitioners v/s. Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam for respondent no.3 Mr. S.R. Agarkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 26th MARCH, 2012. P.C. : Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed R.C. Suit No.99 of 2010. In the said suit, learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar passed order on 30th November, 2010 thereby restraining present petitioners from demolishing the suit property and from constructing the compound wall till the final disposal of the suit. The said Judge also issued an order of injunction restraining the petitioner nos.1 and 2 from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property till the disposal of the suit. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Civil Appeal No.369 of 2010. The said appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge14, Pune by order dated 19th April,l 2011. Hence, this writ petition is filed. After having perused the impugned order, it is clear that the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and issued an order of injunction. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed by the appellate Court i.e. District Court. In such a situation, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners shall adopt appropriate proceedings to redress their grievances so far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a competent Court. Statement made by learned advocate for the petitioners is recorded. As and when such proceedings are filed, the petitioners are free to apply to the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, Dist. Pune for vacation the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar on 30th November, 2010 on the ground that no purpose will be served by continuing the order of injunction on account of the proceedings, which would be filed by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observation, petition stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4666 OF 2005 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal ) Corporation, Sangli and another ).. Petitioners Versus Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha ).. Respondent Mr.N.V.Walawalkar for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M.Dharap with Mr.Helekar for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST JULY 2005 P.C.: . Leave to amend. This Petition is directed against the order dated 4th April 2005 passed below Exhibit U-13 in Reference (IT) No.6 of 1996 by the Industrial Tribunal, Sangli. According to the Petitioners, the Reference was made between the Miraj Municipal Council and the Miraj Kamgar Union. However, the Miraj Municipal Council is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, some of the demands which have been referred may not be applicable and cannot be decided by the Tribunal. He submits that, for instance, Demand No.8 is in respect of the permanency of workmen. The Corporation will now have to decide the seniority based on all employees and not just of Miraj Municipal Council. The Corporation is made up of several Municipal Councils and, therefore, seniority of all the employees will have to be determined. This submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. Permanency is a dispute which is between those specific employees and the Council which is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation. After these workmen are made permanent, it is always open for the Corporation to decide the inter-se seniority of all the workmen including that of other Municipal Councils who are now their employees. The other submission made on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Tribunal cannot decide the Reference in view of the new Corporation coming into existence by the merger of three Municipal Councils. It is submitted that the scope of the Reference is enlarged by incorporating the Petitioners as a party to the Reference. The Industrial Tribunal has considered the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and has rightly not accepted this submission of the Petitioners. Hence, Writ Petition rejected.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2012 Om Prakash Dharampal Agarwal .. Applicant Vs. Niranjan Dharmadas Chawla and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Rafeeq Peermohideen i/b. Mr.Jeetendra Sachdev, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : MARCH 31, 2012 P.C.: I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. Applicant is the original defendant No.1 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.643 of 2008. The present applicant is an auction purchaser in regard to the property which was put up for sale by Respondent No.2 Central Bank of India to the extent of 5500 sq. ft. The total area according to the plaintiffs/Respondent No.1 is 6854.2 sq. ft. The Respondent No.1 wants a declaration from the learned Trial Judge in Civil Court that he continues to be the owner in respect of the property admeasuring 1354.2 sq. ft. of the description in the prayer clause (f). pmw 1 Learned advocate for the applicant wanted to contend that Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal will be the competent authority to resolve the dispute raised in the present plaint and, therefore, this court will have no jurisdiction. This contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant cannot sustain because the point raised by the present Respondent No.1 in the aforesaid suit is not concerning the sale of property of a particular description but he wants a declaration that he is the owner and continues to be so in respect of the property described in the plaint and prayer clause (f). Surely, such declaration can be granted by Civil Court and by no other court. In view of the above, the application is dismissed as no interference is required in the impugned order. There shall be no orders as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Machindra Bodke, advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JANUARY 15, 2014 P.C.: 1 Learned APP waives service for respondent and seeks time. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Notice returnable on 12/2/2014. 2 Pendency of this Petition shall not be construed as stay to the proceedings. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga .Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr.A.M.Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent No.1 – State Mr.Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2014 P.C. . Mr.Arote states that he has been instructed to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2. The office objection, therefore, does not survive. The matter to be listed under the caption "For Admission" after notice on 04.07.2014. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 10: spb/ 10wp2-14.sxw CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 02 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. Mr. A. M. Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Pasbola with Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. V.B.KondeDeshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI,J. DATE : 02 SEPTEMEBR, 2014 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial is concluded and it is kept for recording of the statement of the Petitioner under section 313 of the Cr. P.C.. 3 The Petitioner had made an application for sending the cheque to the document examiner to determine the hand writing on the cheque. The Petitioner denies of his hand writing on the cheque. He admits his signature on the cheque. The learned Advocate Mr.Pasbola, appearing on behalf of the Borey 1/2 Respondent No.2, has stated that it is not the case of the Respondent No.2 that the cheque was in the hand writing of the Petitioner. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that the cheque bears the signature of the Petitioner and it was given by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2. 4 In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, it is not necessary to discuss the order of the learned Magistrate in detail. The position is made absolutely clear by the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. In view thereof, I pass the following order. 5 The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Adinterim order, if any stands vacated. ….. (JUDGE)

Order - Status 5: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2527 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 16905 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Arjun H. Patil for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th February, 2011. P.C. 1 Rule, returnable on 21st April, 2011. 2 There will be adinterim relief of stay of execution and operation of the impugned judgment and order subject to condition of the Applicant depositing in this Court the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from today. If compliance is not made by depositing the compensation amount within the stipulated time, adinterim relief of stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 10: ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 16905 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Arjun H. Patil for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08th July, 2011. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. None appears for the Respondent though the notice is duly served. There is no reply filed to the application. 2 Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ A.S.OKA, J ]

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