All Cases

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6730 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6731 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6732 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6733 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan Dombivali & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar a/w. Mr. Hrishikesh Pawaskar a/w. Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, for the Petitioner in all petitions. Mr. A.S. Rao, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-Corporation. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.3-State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & R.N. LADDHA, JJ DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2023. P.C. : Leave to file additional documents on record is granted to the petitioner. Issue notice for final disposal at the admission stage to the respondents, returnable on 21st June, 2023. Mr. A.S. Rao, learned counsel waives service of notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondent No.3-State. Stand over to 21st June, 2023. [ R.N. LADDHA, J. ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6730 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6731 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6732 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6733 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL B. SHUKRE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 21st June, 2023 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Shri. Ajay Rajendra Pawar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Suresh M Sabrad For Petitioner Mrs.R.M.Shinde,A.G.P.for state. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 12/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Shri. Ajay Rajendra Pawar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Suresh M Sabrad For Petitioner Shri P.P. More, AGP for State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 12th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 13/07/2017 under the caption of withdrawal. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Ajay R. Pawar ..Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.M. Sabrad for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. More, AGP for the Respondents – State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2017. P.C. : . The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 6th May 2016 did not consider the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 12th March 2013 (ExhibitW), the report dated 16th February 2016 of the Additional Collector and the various judgments passed by this Court from time to time. 2] We find that there is no mention about consideration of the said G.R., report of the Additional Collector as also the judgments on which the petitioner has placed reliance. In the circumstances, we allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before respondent No.1. The petitioner may file the review petition within two weeks. 3] Needless to say that we have not commented upon the merits on the petitioner's entitlement. The respondent No.1 is free to decide the review petition, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of filing of such review petition. 4] With aforesaid liberty, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2013 M/s. Kokan Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. Through its authorized officer. … Applicant vs. Mr. Zahid I. Ayubi & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Vikas Singh i/b. Lambay & Co. for the applicant. Ms. A.T.Jhaveri, APP, for the State. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 18th June, 2013. P.C. Heard. Issue notice to respondent No.1. Learned APP waives service for respondent No.2. Notice returnable ten weeks. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 9: Sherla V. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 24th JANUARY, 2014 P.C. On account of paucity of time, the following matters on the daily board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per CMIS: Sr. Nos. CMIS Date 19, 30, 34, 35, 36 03/02/2014 42 06/02/2014 20 05/02/2014 37 07/02/2014 21 23/04/2014 38 10/02/2014 22, 23 24/04/2014 41 28/04/2014 24, 40 25/04/2014 25 29/04/2014 26, 27, 28 30/04/2014 29 02/05/2014 31, 32, 33, 39, 43 20/02/2014 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in any of the above said matters, is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective assigned dates. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties are given liberty to get the papers produced before the Court. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Vikas Singh i/b. Lambay & Co.for the applicant. Ms. Vira Shinde,APP, for the State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE 22nd September, 2014. P.C.: None appears for the respondent, although served. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to place on record the notes of evidence. Time as prayed for is granted. S.O. To 10.11.2014. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2013 M/s. Kokan Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Applicant Versus Zahid I. Ayubi & Anr. ...Respondents Mrs. Alisha Lambay I/b Lambay & Co. for the Applicant Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State CORAM:- REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. WEDNESDAY, 22nd MARCH, 2017 P.C. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that as the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the applicant does not wish to pursue the aforesaid application. Accordingly, the application is disposed of as withdrawn. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2014 Shashikant Chandrakant Rane vs. … Applicant The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the State. I.O. Mr. P.D. Kadam, A.S.I., LCB, Ratnagiri present. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 17th June, 2014. P.C. This Application for anticipatory bail is moved directly before this Court. Learned APP, on instructions from the police constable of Ratnagiri Police Station, makes a statement that on the basis of complaint of Mrs. Suhasini Chavan, no offence is registered at Ratnagiri Police Statement. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this Application, as the applicant/accused wants to file an Application before the Sessions Court, Thane. As the offence is registered at C.R. No. I264/2013 with Dombivli Police Station, Thane, the learned counsel is allowed to withdraw this Application for anticipatory bail with liberty to file an Application before Sessions Court, Thane. Hence, the Application for the anticipatory bail is dismissed as withdrawn. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.490 OF 2015 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.773 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Shyamkumar Marwadi for applicant. Ms. Mallika Ingale for respondent no.2. Mr. Tapan Thatte for Intervener in APPP-490/2015. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 17th November 2015 P.C.: This application has been taken out by the original complainant for intervention in Anticipatory Bail Application no.773 of 2015. For the reasons stated in the said application and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to allow the said application. The applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.773 of 2015 is hereby directed to implead the original complainant as respondent no.3. The amendment to be carried out within one week from today. The application is allowed in the above terms. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 ..... Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ..Appellant. versus Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Smt. V.R. Bhosale , Addl.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. 3rd July, 2015. P.C. : The Appellant to remove the office objections within a period of three weeks from today. Stand over to 24th July, 2015. (A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavale and Anr. ...Respondents ***** None for the Appellant Mr. N. B. Patil - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2023 P. C. :- None present for the contesting parties, even though matter is fixed for final hearing. Matter be kept on 09th March, 2023 under the caption 'for direction'. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 10: SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2023.03.13 14:28:18 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavale and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr.Sandip Kagade i/b. Mr.Anand Patil, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia – APP for the Respondent No.2-State. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : th 9 MARCH, 2023 P. C. :- Learned Advocate Shri.Anand Patil is busy before some other Court. The Court of JMFC has acquitted the Accused by invoking the powers of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Cr.P.C."] as per the order dated 26th December, 2012. It is for not taking steps by the Complainant. Matter be kept on 16th March, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr. S. R. Ghanavat i/by Mr. Anand S. Patil - Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H. J. Dedhia - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 16th MARCH, 2023 P. C. :- As learned Advocate Shri Anand S. Patil is busy before some other Court, adjournment is sought. Matter be kept on 18th April, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 15: Tauseef 12-APEAL.16.2015.doc Digitally Date: 2023.04.25 12:10:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale …Appellant Versus Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 18th APRIL, 2023 P.C. Mentioned out of turn. Learned Advocate for the Appellant seeks accommodation. The Appeal is already admitted. Matter be kept on 14 th June, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 17: HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2023.07.28 00:34:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale Age 56 years, Occupation-Business R/o 2114, "E" Ward, Kawala Naka Kolhapur ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle Age 36 years, Occupation-Business R/o 823, "E" Ward, Line Bazar, Kolhapur … State of Maharashtra …Respondents Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATED : 18TH JULY 2023 JUDGMENT : Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant-complainant. No one is present on behalf of the Respondent-accused. Issue involved in this Appeal is as under : "Whether power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised at post evidence stage when accused remained absent ?" 10.a16.2015.odt The appeal was already admitted on 5th December 2014. The action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated. The Farad Sheet dated 6th June 2023, mentions that Respondent No.1-accused has furnished surety of Rs.10,000/- on 30th June 2015. However, no one has appeared in this Appeal. It is travesty of justice, that appeal involving trifle issue remained pending for eight years. Reasons may be different. Perused the impugned order dated 26th December 2012, passed by 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur in Summary Criminal Case No.4161 of 2006. The accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by taking recourse to Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When this order came to be passed, the matter was fixed for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint was filed in the year 2006 bearing SCC No.4161/06. Roznama indicates accused was in the habit of avoiding process of this Court. The following are the important dates :- January 2007 Process was issued. 17/08/2010 Non bailable warrant issued as accused remained absent. 23/03/2001 Accused produced in execution of Non bailable warrant Application for bail Plea recorded 24/03/2011 Accused released on bail. 30/03/2011 Evidence of complainant. 7/04/2011 No cross order. Close pursis. Adjourned for statement under Section 313 of the Code. 14/07/2011 Non bailable warrant issued 1/02/2012 Cash surety forfeited Issued non bailable warrant. 30/10/2012 Non bailable warrant issued through Superintendent of Police 26/12/2012 Complaint dismissed for want of taking steps. So from events what transpires is as follows :- (a) The complaint is pending since 2006. (b) Accused has no respect for law. (c) He has not responded to Court summons earlier to plea and thereafter also. (d) Trial Court was required to issue non bailable warrant on various occasions. (e) Prior to recording of plea, non bailable warrant was served and Respondent-accused was released on cash bail. (f) Non bailable warrant could not be served even through Superintendent of Police. On this background, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 15th Court, Kolhapur passed an order dated 26/12/2012 thereby acquitting the Respondent-accused by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate noted following facts in the order :- (a) The complainant was absent persistently on 15/06/2012, 4/08/2012, 25/09/2012 and on 30/10/2012 (para 2). (b) Report of Superintendent of Police indicates that accused was outside his house (para 3). (c) Complainant has not taken steps under Section 82, 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (para 4). Now the question is whether it was appropriate for the learned Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If we read those provisions, we may find the following ingredients :- (a) Case is fixed for hearing. (b) Complainant is absent. (c) His presence is required. (d) Court does not feel it necessary to adjourn the matter. Then only complaint can be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand 1 , has dealt with this issue. The purpose is to check the dilatory tactics of the complainant, principle of speedy trial is recognised. 9. However, if the entire facts and circumstances of the case are considered, there is reason to believe that the learned Magistrate has hastily passed that order. It is a matter of record that accused has no respect to the law. And on every occasion, the complainant was 1 (1998) 1 SCC 687 10.a16.2015.odt required to take steps. Execution of non bailable warrant is not an easy formality. At the same time, it is also true that unchallenged evidence could not have been used by the trial Court unless it was put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, trial Court ought to have given weightage to the fact that patience of complainant was tested every time. If it is so, the trial Court waited and could have given direction to the complainant to take steps. The judgment of acquittal need not be interfered rightly. But the power under Section 256 of the Code should not be exercised only for the purpose of disposing of the cases. Trial Court has not considered the efforts taken by the complainant every time to secure presence of the complainant. The order deserves to be set aside. Certain directions for speedy disposal are required as the complaint is pending since 2006. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :- O R D E R (a) The Appeal is allowed. (b) The order passed by the Court of 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur dated 26th December 2012, is set aside. Shiv 6/7 The complaint is restored to file. (c) The complainant is directed to appear before the 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur on 28th July 2023, at 11 am and is directed to take necessary steps. (d) Once the Respondent appears, the trial Court is directed to keep the matter on day-to-day basis. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 736 OF 2016 (For fixing date of final hearing) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2007 Arjun Baban Jagdhane Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Onkar Nagvekar i/b Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar for the Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. WEDNESDAY, 20th JULY, 2016 P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. By this application, the applicant prays that the Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2007 be restored to the final hearing board and date may be fixed for final hearing. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Appeal was earlier added to the final hearing board, however, is not on board now. Perused the application. For the reasons set out in the application, the application is allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2007 be added to the final hearing board in the category of appeals where the accused are on bail, in the week commencing from 25th July, 2016 at its appropriate place. Application is disposed of. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3702 OF 2019 Maha. Police Co-op. Housing Federation Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. (No.2) Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30032 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30028 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30031 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30036 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30030 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30029 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30034 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30033 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30035 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2019 Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Applicant In the matter between: Maharashtra Police Co-operative Housing Federation Limited .. Petitioner Versus Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents .................... Mr. V.S.Kapse i/by Mr. N.S.Rajeshirke for Petitioner Mr. Mandar Limaye i/by Mr. S.S.Aradhye for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for State Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 Mr. Vivek Walavalkar i/by Mr. Abhijeet Gosavi for Intervenor ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2022. P.C. : Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. As informed to the Court, 10 out of the 14 Societies are ready for redevelopment. There are certain issues which are required to be looked into. The 4 reluctant Societies are now represented by Mr. Limaye and Mr. Aradhye (learned Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 to 4) before the Court. This Court had directed both Advocates to use their good officers to see if the said Societies bury their differences and participate in the redevelopment. Admittedly, the redevelopment is at the behest of Federation. One of the grievance mentioned by Mr. Limaye is effective representation of the 4 reluctant Societies in the Federation. Mr. Walawalkar and Mr. Kapse both inform the Court that in so far as effective representation is concerned and disclosure of any other issues to the said Societies are concerned, they are open to the same. In view of the above, this Court makes it clear that unless and until the 4 reluctant Societies point out perversity in the actions of the Petitioner, this Court will be reluctant to cancel the registration. This observation is however prima facie, and subject to hearing the objectors. At the joint request of all learned Advocates for respective parties, stand over to 16th December, 2022. In the meanwhile, adinterim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue. For the above reasons the 9 Interim Applications of the Societies for impleadment are allowed. Interim Application Nos. I.A.No. 30032 of 2022, I.A.No. 30028 of 2022, I.A.No.30031 of 2022, I.A.No. 30036 of 2022, I.A.No. 30030 of 2022, I.A.No. 30029 of 2022, I.A.No. 30034 of 2022, I.A.No. 30033 of 2022 and I.A.No. 30035 of 2022 are disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a) which is identical in all Applications and reads thus: "(a) Allow the Applicant to intervene in the present matter and be further pleased to direct the Petitioner to join the Applicant as a party respondent to the present writ petition," Necessary amendment to be carried out by tomorrow. Re-verification is dispensed with. Copy of the amended cause title shall be provided to the Respondents before the next date. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI 14:37:27 +0530