All Cases

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

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 931 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Ù¡, Court's or Judge's orders Ms Ka Fozda Ms Mr Assoc Ms Karishma Shirke i/by M/s Gordhandas & Fozdar for the Appellant. Ms Mrunalini V. Panchal i/by M/s Navdeep Vora & Associates for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : JANUARY 6, 2014. P.C.: On the request of learned Counsel for the Appel Appellant, stand over 13 January 2014. 2. To be listed along with Appeal No. 930 of 2013. (A.A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4331 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd.through Its Nashik Divisional Office ....Applicant V/S Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4332 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL LODGING NO . 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd.through Its Nashik Divisional Office ....Applicant V/S Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4450 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL LODGING NO . 15757 OF 2018 Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Anr. ....Applicant V/S United India Insu. Co. Ltd. And Ors. ....Respondent Amol Gatne For Applicant Pritesh Kantikumar Bohade for Applicant in CAF 4450/2018. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J DATE : 20th December, 2018 P.C. : Not on board. Taken on Board. At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to as per CMIS. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4332 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .....Applicant V/s. Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke and others .....Respondents Mr. Shubham M. i/b Amol Gatne for the applicant. Mr. Pritesh Bohade for respondent nos. 1 & 2 CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : MARCH 15, 2019. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2 By this Civil Application, applicant is seeking stay of the operation of the Judgment and Award dated 07/12/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nashik in MACP No. 990 of 2010 by which Tribunal held that respondents are entitled to the sum of Rs. 3,40,000/ with 8% interest by way of compensation. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he received instructions from the Insurance Company that they are ready and willing to deposit entire awarded amount alongwith interest in Tribunal within 4 weeks from today. Statement is accepted. 4 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and as the applicant is ready and willing to deposit entire awarded amount within 4 weeks, I am satisfied that applicant has made out case for following order: (I) Operation and implementation of impugned Judgment and Award dated 07/12/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nashik in MACP No. 990 of 2010 is stayed till hearing and final disposal of First Appeal. (II) Applicant to deposit entire awarded amount in Tribunal on or before 30/04/2019 failing which Civil Application stands dismissed without referring back to the Court. (III) If amount is deposited within stipulated period as stated herein above, Tribunal is directed to invest the said amount in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank, initially for a period of one year and thereafter, till further orders. (IV) Liberty granted to respondent nos. 1 & 2 to take out appropriate proceedings, if so advised, for withdrawal and that application be decided on its own merits. (V) Application stands disposed of accordingly. (VI) No order as to costs. [K. K. TATED, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4331 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd.through Its Nashik Divisional Office ....Applicant V/S Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4332 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL LODGING NO . 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd.through Its Nashik Divisional Office ....Applicant V/S Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4450 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL LODGING NO . 15757 OF 2018 Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Anr. ....Applicant V/S United India Insu. Co. Ltd. And Ors. ....Respondent Amol Gatne For Applicant CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J DATE : 4th October, 2019 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 11/11/2019 . Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: Ashwini IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2023 SBI Cap Ventures Ltd …Petitioner Versus Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office & Ors …Respondents Mr Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate *, with Pranav Badheka, Ranjit Shetty, Yuvraj Choksy, Tejas Gokhale & Rahul Dev, i/b Argus Partners, for the Petitioner.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Dr Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED: 6th February 2023 PC:- 1. Prima facie we are unable to see how the impugned order of 11th August 2022 could have been passed in respect of the flats, apartments and properties in the residential project previously known as Mantri Serenity. These apartments and properties that were mortgaged to the Petitioners against security for repayment of funding advanced by the Petitioner. The papers annexed to the Petition prima facie do not show that these apartments and properties were claimed by the Respondents to be, or to have been, 'proceeds of crime' as required under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Digitally signed by ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Date: 2023.02.08 10:04:04 +0530 2. We grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) at page 44 which reads thus: "(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their servants, officers, agents and representatives from acting upon and/taking any coercive steps/implementing the impugned order dated August 11, 2022 bearing reference no. F.No. ECIR/BGZO/31/2022/1667 issued by the Respondent No.2." 3. This order will continue until the next date. We request the Attorneys for the Petitioners to give fresh notice enclosing a copy of this order. The matter is to be listed on 20th February 2023 under the caption for interim relief. 4. Both sides are put to notice that, on the next date, an endeavour will be made to dispose of the Petition at the stage of admission. (Dr Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Order - Status 6: Arun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2023 SBICAP Ventures Ltd …Petitioner Versus Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office & Ors …Respondents Mr Yuvraj Choksy *, with Tejas Gokhale, i/b Argus Partner, for the Petitioner.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED: 20th February 2023 PC:- 1. Mentioned out of turn. 2. The ad-interim order dated 6th February 2023 will continue until 17th March 2023. 3. List the matter on 15th March 2023. ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Date: 2023.02.21 09:53:05 +0530 (Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2023 Sbicap Ventures Ltd. ....PETITIONER V/S Joint Director, Directorate Of Enforcement , Bengaluru Zonal Office And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, JJ DATE : 15th March, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 20/03/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: Gaikwad RD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2023 SBICAP Ventures Ltd, A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and presently operating as per the Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at 202, Maker Tower "E", Cuff Parade, Mumbai 400 005. …Petitioner ~ versus ~ 1. Joint director, Directorate of Enforcement (Bengaluru zonal office), having office at 3rd Floor, 'B' Block, BMTC, Shantinagar, TTMC, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 027. 2. Deputy director, Directorate of Enforcement (Bengalure zonal office), having office at 3rd Floor, 'B' Block, BMTC, Shantinagar, TTMC, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 027. 3. Assistant director, Directorate of Enforcement (Bengaluru zonal office), having office at 3rd Floor, 'B' Block, BMTC, Shantinagar, TTMC, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 027. …Respondents APPEARANCES for the petitioner Mr Shyam Mehta, Senior Counsel, with Pranav Badheka, Ranjit Shetty, Yuvraj Choksy & Tejas Gokhale, i/b Argus Partners. for respondents Mr Harsh Dedhia, i/b HS Venegavkar. CORAM : G.S.Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED : 20th March 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per GS Patel J) :- 1. Rule . Having heard both sides and considered the material, we do not think there is any possible answer to this Petition and therefore we make Rule returnable forthwith and take up the Petition for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner is SBICAP Ventures Ltd (" SBICAP "). It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of SBI Capital Markets Ltd, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of the State Bank of India (" SBI "). 3. The challenge in the Petition is to an order of 11th August 2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office. The 1st Respondent is the Joint Director of the Directorate of Enforcement. Both are Authorities under Section 49 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (" PMLA "). The 2nd Respondent enjoys powers conferred under PMLA read with the Prevention of Money Laundering (Issuance of Provisional Attachment Order) Rules 2013 (" POA Rules "). The 3rd Respondent is an Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, also appointed under Section 49 of the PMLA. 4. The 11th August 2022 impugned order is a provisional attachment of assets worth Rs. 300,43,00,000/-, i.e., over Rs. 300 crores. The attachment was supposed to be in respect of 'assets' of the Mantri Group which includes two entities and one individual, (a) Castles Vista Pvt Ltd, (b) Mantri Developers and (c) Sushil Mantri. SBICAP has a beneficial interest in some assets of Castles Vista. 5. The Mantri Group, essentially through Castles Vista had undertaken a development of a project known as "Mantri Serenity" valued at over Rs. 285 crores. SBICAP had a first charge over certain units in that project. Because of the 11th August 2022 order, that first charge of SBICAP is compromised and has directly Page 3 of 13 20th March 2023 affected the funding being sought by flat purchasers in respect of those units. There is, in paragraph 5, a mention of orders of 2020 and 2022 by the Karnataka High Court staying the operation of the FIR of the predicate offence under the PMLA. The FIR regarding the predicate offence was thus, it is submitted, not in effect or operational at the time of the 11th August 2022 impugned order. 6. A brief background about the investment of SBICAP in the project is from paragraph 6. In 2019, the Union Government approved the setting up of a Special Window in the form of an Alternate Investment Fund (" AIF "). This was to provide priority debt financing specifically to complete housing projects that had been interrupted or stalled and which were meant for the affordable or middle income housing sector. SBICAP is the Investment Manager of the first AIF established under the Special Window. It formed a fund called the "Special Window for Affordable and Middle-Income Housing Investment Fund-I" also known as the SWAMIH Investment Fund-I (" SWAMIH "). This fund is registered with the Securities Exchange Board of India (" SEBI "). Its sponsor is the Government of India itself. The idea was to invest in stalled residential projects which did not enjoy support from conventional banking channels. Obviously, the objective was directed towards welfare to provide relief to home buyers, to realize the completion of projects so that home buyers could actually get possession of their long-promised homes. The fund's mandate is to invest in projects to achieve completion. There is no regular interest servicing requirement until the project is complete. The entire intent is to mitigate the debt servicing burden. Two timelines Page 4 of 13 20th March 2023 operate in parallel: the first is a stricter timeline for project completion and the second is a relaxed timeline for debt repayment. 7. Many such projects were stalled across the country for various reasons. While the Petition does not actually say this, in this Court itself, at least four and possibly six Mantri Group projects have received this Court's attention. Some of those matters came before one of us, GS Patel J, sitting singly in the company jurisdiction. One group involved two projects in Bengaluru itself. One was brought to completion with the cooperation of the land owners and the flat purchasers who formed an association. Possession was delivered. There were similar projects in Gwalior, Solapur, a second project in Bengaluru and at least two projects in Mumbai. In every one of these cases, there were distressed buyers either for residential or commercial properties. Many of them had taken loans from banks, but without the project being completed, these purchasers were confronted with having to service the debt on their own but without any prospect of realizing the asset for which they had taken the loan in the first place. This is the kind of stressed situation that is the underlying philosophy of SWAMIH. SWAMIH steps in to ensure project completion while closely monitoring fund spending. The funding is only for project completion. No amount of funding is allowed to be diverted. Sums that are due and are collected from purchasers are held in an escrow account controlled by SWAMIH and these are also used only for construction-related expenses. The entire fund is driven by financial input from the Government of India and other public sector financial institutions including Life Insurance Corporation and SBI itself. There is thus a clear fiduciary responsibility. Page 5 of 13 20th March 2023 8. In December 2004, Castles Vista was incorporated. Mantri Developers held the majority stake. Sushil Mantri and his wife held the remainder. There was a Joint Development Agreement of 29th September 2010 with one Gokulam Shelters Pvt Ltd for the development of a residential project called Mantri Serenity. The agreement contemplated that another entity in the Mantri Group, Krishna Lila Park Foundation, and Gokulam would respectively receive 27% and 3% from the sale proceeds. The project had five phases. Each phase had a separate Real Estate Regulatory Authority (" RERA ") registration. Castles Vista made an investment of Rs. 650 crores which it obtained with financing from Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. 9. Ten years went by. Castles Vista could not complete the project. Only about 50% work was done. Last mile funding was necessary. Castles Vista came to SBICAP for funding through SWAMIH. After a due diligence, SBICAP agreed to fund Rs.360 crores through a subscription of 36000 non-convertible debentures of a specified description (senior, redeemable, secured and transferable), each of the face value of Rs One Lakh. SBICAP subscribed through SWAMIH to these debentures in seven tranches for a total investment of Rs. 230 crores. An additional Rs. 128 crores needed to be spent for project completion and delivery of possession of the new homes. 10. There was the debenture trust deed dated 30th September 2020 by which SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd was appointed as a Debenture Trustee. There was also an inter-creditor agreement between the Debenture Trustee and Piramal and by this, Piramal ceded its first right in charge in relation to its security in favour of the Debenture Trustee. Thus, Piramal has a second ranking subsidiary charge in comparison to SBICAP. The first charge was created in favour of SBICAP by a Memorandum of Entry dated 30th September 2022 over all the project lands, the project, its construction development including building and so on. There were 622 unsold units across all five phases. There was a Deed of Hypothecation over receivables and this was also dated 30th September 2020. An amended and restated Escrow Agreement dated 30th September 2020 was also put in place as was another Escrow agreement with SBI and the Debentures Trustees. These provided for cash flow mechanisms. 11. The details of these are unimportant for our purposes today. The fact is that the unsold units were mortgaged to SBICAP and the receivables were hypothecated to it. 12. Mantri Groups projects everywhere were in trouble. Some home buyers filed police complaints. The substance of these was that the Mantri Group had taken funds but did not deliver possession. There were also allegations of diversion of funds for non-project expenses, such funds having been received either through loans or from home buyers. Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 were invoked and applied. Now these are scheduled offences under the Section 2(i)(x) and (y) of the PMLA Act. This is why the Respondents registered a case and triggered an investigation under the PMLA. Page 7 of 13 20th March 2023 13. On 7th April 2022, the 3rd Respondent sent a letter to the Debenture Trustee asking for documents regarding credit and loans extended to Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd. There was another notice dated 11th April 2022 calling for further information. The Debenture Trustee clarified on 29th April 2022 that it had not extended a credit or a loan to Mantri Developers at all, but to Castles Vista which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Mantri Developers and that the loan was by SWAMIH, a fund sponsored by the Union of India and managed by SBICAP. The issuance of debentures was also pointed out. 14. There appears to have been no further correspondence from the Respondents. 15. Then came the 11th August 2022 impugned order, a copy of which is at page 53. It is issued under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. The 'reasons to believe' are that the Mantri Group diverted funds received from customers or home buyers to other projects and that this constitutes criminal breach of trust. Since Castles Vista did not complete the Mantri Serenity project in a timely manner, this caused anxiety and stress. As regards the SBICAP rights, the impugned order itself says that Mantri Developers collected funds partly either from loans or from home buyers and then diverted these. 16. But SWAMIH is sponsored by the Central Government for rescuing or resuscitating stressed or stalled projects by providing much needed funding. SWAMIH is the initial debenture holder and Page 8 of 13 20th March 2023 it has sanctioned an investment of Rs. 360 crores to Castles Vista of which Rs.230 crores has been disbursed. The impugned order itself noted that SWAMIH has a first charge over the land and building and other hard infrastructure. The repayment of SWAMIH is also noted. 17. SBICAP is not a party to any proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. 18. There is no disputing the investment by SBICAP or SWAMIH or the creation of the security documents. There is no finding that the assets over which security has been created are proceeds of crime. What is sought to be equated is the value of the assets for recovery. But the Petition points out that this approach not only jeopardizes but possibly torpedoes the entire purpose of SWAMIH and for no discernible reason. The effect of this attachment under the impugned order is that banks and financial institutions have stopped lending to flat purchasers. This has a direct impact on the cash flow and the sales in the project. We leave aside for the moment the question of servicing the debt on the SBICAP-driven investment. Even project completion across all five phases is now directly under threat. 19. That the Petitioner has a first ranking charge cannot be disputed. Mr Mehta is correct in saying that this kind of an approach defeats the purpose of the establishment and formation of SWAMIH, the centrally funded project meant to assist desperate home buyers. 20. We do not understand how the impugned order can say that the 'beneficial interest in the attached units might be transferred by the Mantri Group'. There is not the slightest possibility of this ever happening, because these units are all secured to the Petitioner and it is impossible for "the Mantri Group" to effect any such transfer or to transact these assets. Every sale of a flat in this project is subjected to what is called a waterfall mechanism. The funds run through the Debenture Trustee. The funds are first put towards completion of the rest of the projects and are then utilized to repay the amounts due under the debentures. There is no involvement of any Mantri Group entity in this at all and it cannot transfer any interest in the attached units. No such transfer would be recognized or valid in law. The second charge, that of Piramal, continues and is for Rs. 650 crores. Now there is a hypothecation of the receivables in favour of the Petitioner and the Piramal Group. From where this theory is derived that the Mantri Group "might" transfer an interest is unclear; and it is only speculation The Mantri Group must have an interest to be able to transfer it. Absent that interest there is nothing for the Mantri Group to transfer. 21. This may be a classic case of the Enforcement Directorate's reach exceeding its grasp. The impugned order seems to proceed on the footing that since the project was once being taken up by 'the Mantri Group', therefore that group still has divestible rights. This is supposition. It then goes on to say that the Mantri Group 'might' transfer assets, which is guesswork. It implies that whatever 'rights' the Mantri Group once had, these are immutable for all time, which is a presumption. And it more of less insinuates that the SBICAP and SWAMIH involvement is not lawful, is a planned-in-advance as Page 10 of 13 20th March 2023 some kind of smokescreen or a nefarious subterfuge — and this last, we believe, belongs in the realm of fantasy. 22. This is not a matter of the assets of a private entity shown to be engaged in money laundering. What the impugned order has thrown into jeopardy are extraordinary amounts of public funds raised from the Central Government, LIC, SBI and nine public sector banks. The Department of Economic Affairs contributes 50% and the balance 50% comes from this consortium. The loss apprehended by SBICAP is between Rs.140 to Rs.180 crores and ED cannot explain how those public funds will ever be recovered. 23. But leave aside the money consideration. What the impugned order does not tell us is how the interest of the home owners or flat purchasers are in any way secured by the impugned order. Will they receive their money back? Will they be able to realize their longdelayed dreams of obtaining possession of completed apartments? There is no illegality in the title or the rights acquired by the SBICAP. There is no charge of money laundering against SBICAP. Yet the impugned order seeks to clamp down on the assets over which SBICAP has a first charge. 24. We are unable to see any provision of the PMLA that has, combined with the non obstante clause, an overriding charge that would defeat, efface or render subservient the rights of a secured creditor. It is even unclear whether the attachment by the PMLA constitutes a sovereign debt in a case like this. Even if it did, it would not prevail over the rights of a secured creditor claiming security Page 11 of 13 20th March 2023 under a contract. We are unable to see from the impugned order a single finding rendered after the due process of law that there is anything remotely untoward let alone illegal within the meaning of the PMLA in the Petitioner's acquisition of rights over the flats in question, the project or the receivables. It is no argument to say that the PMLA proceedings are in the public interest. Every statute is in the public interest. But is it being suggested that the SWAMIH fund is not in the public interest, despite all that is known? SBICAP is not even made a party to the PMLA proceedings. 25. All this is apart from the fact that the Karnataka High Court has by its orders of 1st October 2020 and 12th July 2022 stayed further proceedings on the FIR containing the predicate offence against the Mantri Group. That would speak to the substratum of the PMLA orders. Mr Mehta tells us that the Petitions before the Karnataka High Court have been finally disposed off with similar orders. We note the statement. 26. We must, we believe, look in this matter to the much larger public purpose that is being subserved by SBICAP, i.e., of completing these delayed projects and of serving the needs of home buyers who have taken loans and have to service their debts. 27. Having regard to these circumstances, we believe that there is no conceivable answer to the Petition. Apart from anything else, no amount of affidavits can supply reasons if these are not to be found in the impugned order itself. We have considered the impugned order to see if there is the slightest justification for moving against the secured assets. RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2023.03.24 10:42:21 +0530 28. Finding none, we proceed to make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. (Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 13 of 13 20th March 2023