All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner Vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents --- Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for the petitioner. Mr.R.P. Kadam, AGP for the respondent no.1. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 31st October 2018 P.C.: . Issue notice upon the respondent nos.2 to 6, returnable on 10th December 2018. Learned counsel waives service for the respondent no.1. In addition to the Court notice, the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent nos.2 to 6 by private notice through Registered A.D./Speed post/ Fax/Courier/hand delivery in advance and file affidavit of service before the returnable date. Humdust is permitted. There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). The petitioner is directed to convey this order to the respondent nos.2 to 6. Parties as well as the District Judge to act on the authenticated copy of this order. R.D. DHANUKA, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ....Petitioner V/S Deputy Charity Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 23rd January, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, S. O. to 28/02/2019. Interim protection, if any, granted earlier and in force as on today, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ....Petitioner V/S Deputy Charity Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 28th February, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, S. O. to 01/04/2019. Interim protection, if any, granted earlier and in force as on today, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12574 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ...Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner and ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis for the Petitioner. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP. For Respondent No.1. Mr. Pratap Patil for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ---- CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2019 P.C. Both these petitions are between the same parties and involve connected questions and as such, they are being disposed off by this common order. Ramrajya Shikshan Sanstha is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act ("Act" for short). On 5.4.2001 the lenared Deputy Charity Commissioner, Pune in C.R. No.700 of 2000 had directed the parties to apply for settlement of a scheme for the said trust and accordingly, an Application No.77 of 2002 was filed. The 1st respondent by an order dated 4.4.2005 framed a scheme for the said trust. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Misc. Civil Application No.353 of 2005 purportedly under Seciton 72 of the Act challenging the said scheme. A similar application was filed by Sambhaji Ganpat Shirsat and others being Misc. Civil Application No.1039 of 2017. The learned District Judge, Pune by a common Judgment dated 28.6.2011 allowed both these applications and while setting aside the order dated 4.4.2005 remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry and decision under Section 50(A) of the Act to the 1st respondent. That was challenged by the trust along with Sambhaji Ganpat Shirsat in First Appeal No.1796 of 2011. Suresh Jagannath Bhandalkar also challenged the said order in a separate Appeal being First Appeal No.1797 of 2011 before this Court. This court by a common Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2014 allowed both these appeals placing reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane and others 2008(3) Mah.L.J. 242 and Gaffar Sattarkhan Pathan and others vs. Marutirao Tatyaba Sarpate and anr. 2012 (3) Mah.L.J. 211 holding that the District Judge acting under Section 72 of the Act had no power of remand. Consequently, M.C.A. No. 353/2005 and M.C.A.No.1039 of 2007 were restored to the file of the learned District Judge, for deciding the same within the confines of Section 72 of the Act. The said applications are pending before the learned District Judge at Pune. The applicants before the learned District Judge filed an application Exh.64 purportedly under Section 72(1)(A) of the Act, for production of additional evidence. It is contended that the main ground of challenge to the order dated 4.4.2005 is that a fraud has been played when the scheme was framed. In short, it was contended before the learned District Judge that except the first and last page of the scheme which was submitted before the first respondent, other pages were changed. By a result of which, an altogether different scheme, than what was proposed and envisaged came to be framed on 4.4.2005. In short, it was claimed that it is necessary to afford an opportunity to lead evidence to bring out the said alleged fraud. The application was opposed on behalf of the present petitioner on the ground that the same is not maintainable and no such claim for leading of additional evidence was made in the first round of litigation, prior to the order of remand. The first respondent by impugned order dated 6.1.2018 has allowed the application Exh.64 which order is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.5870 of 2018. In pursuance of the said order, an affidavit in evidence of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale came to be filed before the learned District Judge at Exh.95. The said witness was orally examined on 22.10.2018 and the cross examination of the said witness on behalf of the petitioner has been closed and by a separate order of even date the matter is fixed for final arguments. These orders are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.12574 of 2018. I have heard Ms. Manjiri Parasnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have also heard Ms. Bane,AGP. for the 1st respondent. Perused record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable, inasmuch as the applicant in M.C.A. No.353 of 2005 and 1039 of 2007 had never made any request for leading additional evidence in the first round i.e. prior to the order of remand dated 28.6.2011. It is submitted that, in any event, the respondents (applicants) in the aforesaid two applications cannot now enlarge scope of challenge and permission to lead evidence in two applications would enlarge the scope of challenge. The learned counsel strenuously urged that, the impugned order is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the District Judge particularly when order in First Appeal No.1796/2018 does not contemplate or envisage the leanred District Judge allowing any further/additional evidence. It is submitted that this court has restored the aforesaid two applications on the file of the lenared District Judge only on the ground that the learned District Judge had no power to remand, while entertaining a challenge under Section 72 of the Act. It is thus, submitted that the impugned order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) cannot be sustained. In so far as W.P. No.12574/2018 is concerned, it is submitted that if the order permitting additional evidence is set aside, there is no occasion for further evidence of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale being led. In the alternative, it is submitted that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) which is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.5870/2018 then permission be granted to the petitioner to cross examine Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that, it has all along been the case made out by these respondents that there has been fraud played wherein except the first and last page, other pages of the scheme were changed, as a result of which the scheme different than the one which was envisaged came to be approved by order dated 4.4.2005 He submitted that there are wide powers conferred on the District Judge under Section 72 of the Act which includes power to allow additional evidence being led, particularly when District Judge has been held to have no power to remand the matter. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision of this court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra). Ms. Parasnis, the lenared counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable. I have considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made and I do not find that any case for interference is made out in the impugned order dated 6.1.2018, which is subject matter of challenge in W. P. No.5870/2018. It has all along been the case of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that there has been fraud played in the matter of framing of scheme on 4.4.2005 as except first and last page all other pages of the proposed scheme were changed. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to go into the question as to whether the case made out can be accepted or not, inasmuch as the said matter is still subjudise before the learned District Judge. Section 72 of the Act has since been deleted by Maharashgtra Act 55 of 2017 with effect from 10.10.2017. However, Section 33 of the Amending Act provides that nothing in the said amending Act shall affect applications and/or appeals pending before any civil court on the date of commencement of the said Amendment Act, 2017. There is no dispute about the said aspect. This is only mentioned to put the record straight. Section 72(1A) of the Act, as it stood prior to its deletion and which is relelvant for the purpose reads thus:- "(1A) No party to such application shall be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, before the Court, unless the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause the Court thinks if necessary to allow such additional evidence: Provided that whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. (2) The court after taking evidence if any, may confirm, revoke or modify the deciion or remit the amount of the surcharge and make such orders as to costs as it thinks proper in the circumstances." It can thus be seen that the Deputy or the Assistant Charity Commissioner can in a given case admit evidence including the examination of any witness in the circumstances as set out in Section 72(1A) of the Act. This court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra) has held that the Deputy Charity Commissioner acting under Section 72 of the Act has specific powers only to confirm, revoke or modify the decision and there is no power of remand. It has been further held in this context that the specific power avaialble to the court under sub section (2) of Section 72 is inclusive of the power to take evidence if any. This court in Para 30 of the Judgemnt has held that, it is implicit that no special case is required to be made out as per the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to adduce additional evidence. It has further been held that this specific inclusion of the power to take evidence, will show that the intention of the Legislature is to avoid remand. As noticed earlier, it has all along been the case of repsondent Nos. 2 to 4 that there has been fraud played when the scheme was framed by order dated 4.4.2005 by change of certain pages and in that view of the matter, the lenared District Judge has thought it fit to allow such additional evidence being led. The record disclosed that, in pursuance of the said order an affidavit in examination-in-chief of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale is already filed. The impugned order in my considered view is not amenable to interference particularly, when it does not result into any manifest injustice on the petitioner. The contention that such a request was not made prior to the remand, to my mind cannot be accepted. Only because at that point of time request was not made, cannot preclude the first respondent to permit such evidence being led, if a case to that effect is made out, In that view of the matter, W.P.No.5870 of 2018 has to fail. This takes me to WP No.12574/2018 in which the challenge is to the closure of the cross examination on behalf of the petitioner of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale. In my considered view for a fair trial and in the interest of justice opportunity to cross examine Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale needs to be granted. The possibility of petitioner having failed to cross examine the said witness as petitioner was contemplating challenge to the order dated 6.1.2018 cannot be ruled out, However, once that challnge has failed, I find that such an opportunity needs to be granted. Ms. Parasnis, the lenared counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that, taking advantage of the order dated 6.1.2018, the petitioner may lead evidence which may not be strictly relevant for deciding Civil Misc. Application No.353/2005. The apprehension in my considered view is misplaced as the learned District Judge has to ensure that the evidence being led is strictly relevant for deciding the issues arising in Misc. Civil Applciation NO.353/2005 and such additional evidence shall only be restricted to the grounds of challenge as raised in Misc. Civil Application No.353/2005. In the result, following order is passed. ORDER a) Writ Petition No.5870 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. The order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) permitting to lead additional evidence is hereby confirmed. Needless to mention that such evidence shall be confined to the grounds of challenge as raised in Misc. Civil Application No.353 of 2005. b) Writ Petition No.12574 of 2018 is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.10.2018 (below Exh.95) and below Exh.109 are herebty set aside. c) The petitioner is permitted to cross examine the witness Dattatraya Bhosale (Exh.95). d) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. e) At this stage Ms. Parasnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for extension of interim relief for a period of four weeks. On hearing the lenared counsel for the parties, it is directed that ad-interim relief granted on 31.10.2018 in terms of prayer clause (c) and (d) shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today. [C.V. BHADANG, J.]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 ….. Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020 P.C. . Not on board. Taken on board. This is mentioned for extension of the ad-interim relief which was continued for a period of four weeks on 16/12/2019. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, ad-interim relief shall continue to operate for period of three weeks as a last chance. No further extension shall be granted. Stand over to 3/2/2020. C.V. BHADANG, J.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 ….. Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents Ms. Priya Shetty i/b. Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. . The petition is already disposed of on 16/12/2019. Hence, removed from board. C.V. BHADANG, J. Mamta Kale

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12574 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ..Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Priya Shetty i/b. Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. ….. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. . The petition is already disposed of on 16/12/2019. Hence, removed from board. C.V. BHADANG, J.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5308 OF 2008 Rashmi Gruh Nirman Pvt.Ltd. through its Director Shri Ashwin Tribhuvandas Shah ...Petitioner Versus Unique Shanti Developers through its proprietor Harshad P.Doshi ...Respondent ...... Mrs.Neeta Karnik for Petitioner. Mr.Vineet B.Naik with Mr.Amit Yadkikar i/b M/s.Desai & Diwanji for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 7, 2008. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Yadkikar waives notice for Respondent. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane dated 27th February 2008 below Exhibit 353 in Special Civil Suit No.362 of 2000. By this order, the Trial Court has rejected the Application preferred by the Petitioner for amendment of written statement. By the said Application, the Petitioner intended to insert Paragraph 20A in the written statement which reads thus: "20A. That the suit filed by Unique Shanti Developer is not maintainable as the plan which is shown to have been sanctioned in the name of unique Shanti Pvt Ltd and the said plan is also sanctioned much after alleged suit agreement and hence the said suit agreement are not binding. Moreover by virtue of provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act 1999, the provisions of Urban Ceiling Act are not applicable to suit lands, this has been done by State of Maharashtra by its government gazette dated 6.12.2007 wherein it has been declared that "Now, therefore in pursuance of clause (2) of article 252 of the Constitution of India, the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly hereby resolves that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act 1999, passed by the parliament be adopted for this state." The Trial Court, however, has rejected the said application essentially on two counts. Firstly, that admission given in the cross-examination cannot be termed as subsequent event to permit bringing on record new facts now pleaded in the proposed amendment. The second reason is that the issuance of Notification referred to in the latter part of Paragraph 20A cannot be the basis to permit amendment to the written statement. Insofar as the first reason is concerned, I am in agreement with the submission of the Petitioner that it is for the first time during the course of cross-examination, the Respondent produced sanctioned plan on 16th October 2007. No reference to the said sanctioned plan was made in the Plaint or produced along with the documents on any earlier occasion. The position now stated in proposed Paragraph 20A is with reference to the said sanctioned plan which has come on record for the first time on 16th October 2007. That indeed was a revelation made to the Petitioner for the first time during the course of trial. Therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to raise such issues as were available to the Petitioner in relation to the said fact. That is the purport of amendment to be introduced in the written statement in terms of Paragraph 20A. By that amendment, the Petitioner would contend that the Suit filed by the Respondent itself is not maintainable as plan was sanctioned in favour of person other than the Respondent/Plaintiff. That fact necessarily has to be pleaded and also proved by the Defendant for which amendment as sought will have to be granted in the interest of justice. Insofar as the opinion recorded by the Trial Court in the context of the latter part of the Paragraph 20A, I am in agreement with the Petitioner that the merits of the efficacy of the Notification dated 1st December 2007 will have to be decided at the trial. The fact remains that the Notification has been issued recently on 1st December 2007. That is a subsequent event which is pleaded in proposed Paragraph 20A. Thus understood, even that part of the amendment will have to be granted. In the circumstances, the impugned Judgment and Order is set-aside and instead Application Exhibit 353 filed by the Petitioner is made absolute with further direction that the Petitioner shall carry out amendment within three weeks from today. The Petitioner who is personally present in Court, through Counsel, assures that the Petitioner will extend full co-operation to the Trial Court for early disposal of the Suit and shall not take recourse to any further applications during the course of trial to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. That assurance is accepted. Needless to observe that as the Petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement by inserting Paragraph 20A and the written statement has been treated as counter claim, the Respondent would be free to file such pleadings in response to the said amended written statement as may be advised. That be done within two weeks from the date the Petitioner carries out amendment in the written statement. Petition disposed of on the above terms. No order as to costs. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.2238 OF 2014 Omprakash Bajrangi Tiwari ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ********** Mr.M.S. Prasad for Petitioner Mrs. P.H. Kantharia -APP for the State ********** CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JULY 23, 2014 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. This petition is filed for quashing of FIR registered by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been registered with the Kurla Police Station vide C.R. No. 23 of 2014. It is submitted that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were adults when the complaint was filed and in the complaint it is alleged that since the Petitioner had given false assurance and promise of marriage, Respondent No.2 had given her consent to have sexual intercourse with him. It is submitted that now the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have married. Our attention is invited to the marriage certificate which is annexed to the petition. It is submitted that, therefore, now the provisions of section 420 and 376 are not attracted. Secondly, it is submitted that Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit and has stated that the said vat (WP 2238 of 2014) complaint was filed by her on account of misunderstanding that the Petitioner was not willing to marry her. In the affidavit, she has also stated that this was the mistaken belief since the Petitioner has now married with Respondent No.2 and, therefore, the allegation made by her was on account of misunderstanding. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the offences punishable under section 420 and 376 are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab and another [2014 AIR SCW 2065] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. We have interviewed Respondent No.2. She has stated that they are living happy married life and they are staying separately in a rental premises. We are of the view that the quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet is in the interest of both the Complainant as well as her husband. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The FIR which is registered by the Kurla Police Station vide C.R. No.23 of 2014 for the offence punishable under section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which has resulted in filing of the charge-sheet / Sessions Case pending in the Sessions Court, Mumbai are quashed. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [P.D. KODE,J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5504 OF 2008 Umajirao Sanamadikar Medical Foundation, Jath ) . ......Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors)........ Respondant. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare Sr. adv. I/b P.J.Thorat for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P.Thakur AGP for the State. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 25TH JULY 2008. P.C.: Issue notice to the respondents. Counsel appearing for the State accepts notice, waives service and further states that they will consider the present writ petition as a representation and after considering the same pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law. In view of the statement made nothing survives in the present writ petition. Writ Petition is disposed of. The State shalll abide by the statement and pass appropriate order within two weeks from today. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

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 STAMP NO. 15104 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 6th June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 21/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15104 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 21st June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to02/08/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja ..Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, New Delhi and others ..Respondents Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Irvin D'Souza h/f Joshna A. Patnigeve, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. DATE: 2nd APRIL, 2019 P.C.: 1] Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 16/04/2019. 2] Mr. D'Souza, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Kalel, AGP, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.3. Respondents may file their reply by the next date. (DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 3rd December, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 11th February, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 28/04/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT DEEPALI YATIN DEHERKAR for Petitioner Shri. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b JOSHUA ABHAY PATNIGERE for Respondent no 1 and 2 Mrs. P. N. Diwan Respondent AGP for state CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 28th July, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 20/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: Y.S.Patil 1 62-WP-12596-2018 (C) .doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary And Ors. ...RespondentS Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. P.N. Diwan AGP for the State. Mr. Joshua Abhay Patnigere for Respondent Nos 1 and 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & R.N. LADDHA, J.J. DATED : 20 th SEPTEMBER 2022 P.C. :- Learned counsel for respondents seeks a weeks accommodation to file sur-rejoinder. Stand over to 4th October 2022 as a last chance. No further time would be granted. (R.N.LADDHA, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 20: 44.12356.18-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL Date: 2022.10.06 14:11:47 +0530 Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ PATIL Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ….. Petitioner Vs. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee ….. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 K. Padmaja ….. Petitioner Vs. General Secretary & Ors. ….. Respondents Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioners Mrs. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh I/b. Mr. Joshna A. Patnigere for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA & R.N. LADDHA, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 4, 2022 P.C. 1 Respondent No.2 school is presently affiliated to the CBSE and governed by its Rules. 2 The learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5789 of 2022 to submit that the present Writ Petition would not be tenable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Institution is unaided affiliated to CBSE. 3 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to go through the said judgment. 4 At the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, S.O. to 10th November 2022. (R.N. LADDHA,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ….Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee and ors. ….Respondents along with WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padamja ….Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee and ors. ….Respondents Mr. Deepali Deherkar, Advocate for the Petitioner in both the petitions. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Joshua A. Patnigere, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent No.3 – State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. G. DIGE, JJ. DATE : 10th NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C. : Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to verify whether the CBSC has framed any rules covering the transfer of employees. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, stand over to 14th December, 2022. (S. G. DIGE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary Dav College Managing Committee ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, JJ DATE : 24th February, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 21/03/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL B. SHUKRE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA, JJ DATE : 18th October, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee and Ors. ...Respondents Digitally signed by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2024.01.08 12:57:07 +0530 YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 .…... K.Padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee And Ors ...Respondents ……. Ms. Deepali Deherkar, for the Petitioner. Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 3 JANUARY 2024 P.C.: . The Petitioners have challenged orders of transfer issued in May 2018. There is no interim order in these Petitions. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners are already working on the transferal post since last 5 years. Request is made on behalf of the Petitioners for adjournment. Stand over to 14 February 2024. If the Petitions are not argued on the next date, it will be presumed that the Petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the Petition and appropriate orders will be passed. (M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 30: Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2024.04.23 19:13:20 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents ….. Ms.Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh with Ms.Karishma Shinde i/b. Joushya Patnigare for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms.Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent -State. …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 19 APRIL 2024 P.C. : The Petitioners are challenging the transfer order dated 4 May 2018. There is no interim order. The Petitioners have joined the transferred post and are working. Before we proceed further with the matter, we are of the opinion that the issue needs to be amicably resolved. It is open to the Petitioners to make a request to Respondent No.1 for simplicitor transfer of the Petitioners back to the original post and for Respondent No.1 to consider the same. Respondent No. 2 will give audience to the Petitioners and decide further course of action. Stand over to 7 May 2024, to be listed under the caption "For Directions". (M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b. Joshua A. Patnigare for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent -State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATED : 7 MAY 2024 P.C.: Learned Counsel for the parties states that efforts are underway to explore the possibility of settlement. At the joint request, stand over to 21 June 2024 under the caption "for directions" (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 12596 of 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner. V/s. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. With Writ Petition No.12356 of 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane … Petitioner. V/s. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioner in both petitions. Mr. S.H. Kankal,AGP for the State in W.P. No. 12596/18. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the State in W.P. No. 12356/18. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 21 June 2024. P.C. : The learned counsel for the parties state that settlement talks have not succeeded. List the Petition on Board on 12 July 2024 for admission. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) L.S. Panjwani,P.S.

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane. … Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja. … Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar, Advocate for Petitioner in both Petitions. Mr. Irvin D'Souza i/b. Joshua Abhay Patnigere, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP, for Respondent-State in WP/12356/2018. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP, for Respondent-State in WP/12596/2018. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATED : 12 JULY 2024 P.C.: At the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Management, stand over to 19 July 2024. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Digitally signed by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date: 2024.07.16 10:50:22 +0530

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary Dav College Managing Committee and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 **** SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.07.22 11:23:16 +0530 Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w Karishma Shinde, Vaibhav Thorve i/b Joshva Abhay Patnigere for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.H. Kanakal, AGP for Respondent No.3/State. **** CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 19 JULY 2024 P.C. : . The Petitioner is seeking as relief against Respondent/private Educational Institute. There is no relief sought against any State Authority. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to examine the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject matter. Stand over to 8 August 2024. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, and Ors. ...Respondents HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN Date: 2024.08.09 18:27:26 +0530 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, and Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners in both petitions. Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Joshva Abahy Patnigere for Respondent No.1 in both petitions. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent No.3 State in WP/ 12356/20218 and Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent No.3 State in WP/12596/20218. *** CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 8 AUGUST 2024 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioners are working with Respondent No. 2 School which is run by Respondent No. 1 Institute. Respondent No. 2 is a Secondary School and is affiliated with CBSE Board. The petitioners by these petitions challenge the order of transfer dated 4 May 2018. The Petitioners have been transferred from Nerul to Kharghar, Navi Mumbai which is a distance of not more than 20 k.m. The Petitioners have raised several issues such as transfer being mid-term transfer and punitive in nature. As far as aspect of mid-term transfer is concerned, it is now six years since the order of transfer is issued and therefore this issue does not survive any more. As regards other aspects are concerned, considering the passage of time we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate if the Petitioners make representations to Respondent School to reconsider the order which is passed in the year 2018. If such representations are made, it is for the Respondent to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders therein as per law and as per other administrative aspects. If the representations are made within a period of four weeks, the Respondent will make an endeavor to communicate the decision to the Petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter. We have kept all the issues open while we permit the Petitioners to make representations. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2395 OF 2018 Nilesh Natvarlal Bhayani : Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents. Mr. Aaditya A Gore for the Petitioner. Mr. K V Saste, Addl. PP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 26th JUNE 2018 P.C. 1 The Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR which has been registered under Sections 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said FIR has been registered by the Competent Authority i.e. Assistant Supply Officer exercising powers under the Essential Commodities Act. 2 The Petitioner is the partner of the firm M/s. Mahavir Gas Services which is a distributor of LPG Cylinders. The gravamen of the allegations against the said firm is in respect of the alleged malpractices in respect of the cylinders which are meant for commercial purposes. The deficiency as regards the number of cylinders found at site has been recorded in the FIR. The Petitioner's other two brothers one Mahendra N Bhayani and Virendra N Bhayani are also the accused along with the Petitioner. 3 In his endeavour of seeking quashing of the FIR on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner in fact as a whistle blower has brought to the notice of the authorities the alleged malpractices being committed in the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services. It was further the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act would not be attracted as the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services does not fit the requirements of the said Section 10. 4 We are unable to accept the said contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner implicit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is the fact that there seems to be a dispute between the Petitioner and his brothers as a result of which the Petitioner it seems made a complaint to the authorities. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the Explanation to the said Section, which clarifies that a "Company" would include a "Firm", which the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services undoubtedly is. Apart from Section 10, the offences alleged against the Petitioner are also under Sections 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act. The contentions which were sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as regards nonactive participation of the Petitioner in running of the business of the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services, at best can be the defences of the Petitioner which would be available to him for being urged at the appropriate time. We therefore do not deem this a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction at this stage. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that the trial would be proceeded with on its own merits and in accordance with law. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5167 OF 2005 Om-Satnam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. ... The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society & Ors. : Respondents Mr.Bharat Joshi with Mr.Rajesh Singh for the petitioners. Mr.A.H.Palekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the respondent nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. August 25, 2005. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Palekar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4. Head by consent. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and, in my view, rightly is that the Divisional Joint Registrar took cognizance of the petitioners' application for stay, but has not passed any order on the said application. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar has not even assigned any reason for not passing any order. In the circumstances, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to decide the petitioners' application for stay on merits within a period of four weeks from the date the parties appear before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Joint REgistrar on 31.8.2005. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Status quo shall continue till the learned Divisional joint Registrar decides the petitioners' stay application. Thereafter, the order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar shall be in force. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J. 2

Order - Status 5: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar Registrar's orders. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Mohd. Shine with S. S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP No. 2129 of 2016. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Manish Rai for petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ **.** July 05, 2016. P.C. : Issue notice to respondents, returnable after four weeks i.e. 2/8/2016. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 – State. Till the next date i.e. 2/8/2016, we direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of the subject crime. However, it is clarified that there is no stay to the investigation. (PRAKASH D. NAIK *,* J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Mohd.Shine with S.S.Bijlani for Petitioner in WP No.2146 of 2016. Mr.G.K.Masand i/by Manish Rai for Petitioner in WP No.2129 of 2016. Mr.Kanishk Jayant with Mr.Harvinder Singh for Respondent no.2. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 2nd August 2016 PC :­ 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 appears. Stand over to 10 August 2016. Ad­interim relief granted earlier to continue till 10 August 2016. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents …... Mr. Mohd. Shine a/w. S.S. Bijlani, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P. No.2129 of 2016. Mr.G.K. Masand i/b. Mr.Manish Rai, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P.No.2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for Respondent - State in both the petitions. Mr. Kanishk K. Jayant, Advocate for Respondent Respondent no.2 in both the petitions. …... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2016. P.C. : Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Following issues arise for consideration: (a) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Maharashtra; (b) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab; (c) Whether FIR/complaint registered against accused persons attracts penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the SC & ST Act") 2 In the facts and reading compliant whether penal offence is attracted, learned counsel appearing for petitioners places reliance on following judgments: (a) Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. 1 (b) State of Mahrashtra Vs. Milind & Ors. 2 (c) Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. 3 (d) Ghanshyam Kala s/o. Jagat Ram Kala Vs. The State 4 (e) Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 5 (e) Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 6 1 (1990) 3 SCC 130 2 (2001) 1 SCC 4 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531 4 2009(1) Uttaranchal Decision 639 5 2003(3) Mh.L.J 225 6 (2010) 8 SCC 775 3 Learned counsel appearing for complainant prays for dismissal of these petitions. It was submitted that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab and in relation to the State of Maharashtra, the issue is required to be considered on a broader prospective. Learned counsel referred to Article 17 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned APP submits that investigation is likely to be completed within three to four weeks. 5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find that the issues raised by petitioners for consideration. 6 Rule. Rule returnable early. 7 In the meantime, further proceedings consequent to registration of FIR stands stayed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Mr. Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mohd. Shine i/b S.S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP/2129/2016. Mr.Manish Rai for petitioner in WP/2146/2016. Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Kaushik Jayant a/w. Ms. Antra Jayant, Mr. Nilesh Mandavkar, Mr. Rajye Jain i/b Kanishk Jayant for respondent No.2 in WP/2129/2016 and WP/2146/2016. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH OCTOBER 2019 P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned, in view of urgency. Taken on production board. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in both petitions. 3. The subject first information report bearing C.R. No. II-15/2016, dated 18-05-2016 on the complaint of the respondent No.2 (in both petitions) for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016, are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 in the subject crime and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2129 of 2016 are the original accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the subject crime. 4. Pending investigation of the subject crime, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and accordingly the complainantrespondent No.2 has submitted consent terms before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-Panvel in Hindu Marriage Petition No.297 of 2015. The copy of the consent terms presented before the Court. Clause (4) of the consent terms reads as under :- 4 The petitioner Husband has agreed to give his consent for quashing of FIR filed by him bearing No. II-15/2016 dated 18 th May 2016 u/s 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act, 1989 and section 7(1)(5) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. 1955 with CBD Police Station, Navi Mumbai against father of the Respondent i.e., the Gharasingh Chahal, Gurmit Kaur, Gurbax Singh, Hardeep Singh Anjan, Mehersingh Randhava, K.J.S. Bhatti, Gurinderjit Saini. The Petitioner-husband is agreed to give his consent and/or file an affidavit to that effect in Writ Petition bearing No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition bearing No. 2129 of 2016 filed in respect of said FIR bearing No.II-15/2016." 5. In view of the above understanding, the parties have approached this Court for quashing the subject crime. The respondent No.2 has filed a common affidavit dated 9 th October 2019 in both Writ Petitions, i.e., Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 and in paragraph 6 thereof, has given consent to the withdrawal of all the charges levelled in the subject crime. The respondent No.2 is personally present in Court and on specific query by this Court, confirmed that he has no objection to quash the subject FIR. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaints, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1 , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), respectively. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the petitioners for using the police and judicial machinery for settling their personal disputes. In view of this, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs in each petition. The total amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to "Tata Memorial Hospital", an institution that takes care of the patients suffering from cancer at advanced stage and/or terminally ill due to cancer. For the quashment to take effect, the petitioners shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petitions shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est. 8. Subject to above, the writ petitions stand disposed of. [ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] [ RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil. .. Petitioner. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglormeratin, Thane & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. S.G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Govt.Pleader for Respondent no.1 to 3. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Notice before admission returnable within four weeks. Govt. Pleader waives service for respondent nos. 1 to 3. In the meantime there will be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e). (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector & Competent Authority Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Ms. M. P. Thakur – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 04, 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr. Karandikar for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the possession of the land in question which was subject matter of proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act is still with the petitioner. It is further contended that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of Voltas Limited vs. Addl. Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. reported in 2008(5) Bom. C.R. 746. In that view of the matter, the proceedings which are pending under the Act after the said decision stands vitiated if the possession of the land in question is with the petitioner. The learned AGP seeks time till 12th January, 2010 to verify whether the possession of the land is still with the petitioner. In the circumstances, time granted. Place the matter on 12th January, 2010 for admission. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : MARCH 04, 2010. P.C. : The learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks further time of two weeks by way of last chance to seek instructions whether the possession of the land in question is still with the petitioner. Time granted by way of last chance. Place the matter on 19th March, 2010. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil .... Petitioner V/s. The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010 P.C. Rule. Learned AGP for the State waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the sides, petition is taken up for hearing today. The land of the petitioner was declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Petitioner had submitted a scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was initially approved. However, subsequently, it was cancelled and the land was treated as excess. A notification under section 10(3) of the act, was published in the official Gazette on 01022007 and thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 18062007. This aspect has been highlighted by the Government in Para No.1 of the affidavitinreply. However, in para No.1 it is stated that possession of excess land admeasuring 3260 sq.mtrs., has not been taken. During the course of hearing, learned AGP submitted that there is nothing to show that any physical possession was taken, nor any panchanama was made. It is therefore, an indubitable fact that the aforesaid area remained in the possession of the petitioner all through out till today. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which provides that "the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect, (a) the vesting of any vacant land under subSection (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or the competent authority". Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any compensation in any manner and therefore, there is no question of any amount which is required to be paid back to the State Government as per subSection 2 of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is required to be noted that in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr., V/s. Additional Collector & Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) 2 Bom.C.R. 746 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that : Now so far as those lands which are owned by the petitioners in relation to which a notification under subsection 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act was issued and the order under subsection (5) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made are concerned, it is the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act which are relevant. Reading of Section 3 of the Repeal Act shows that it is a saving clause and subsection 1(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act saves vesting of any vacant land under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. In other words, vesting of vacant lands under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in the State Government, possession of which has not been taken over, is not saved. In the present case, it is an admitted position that though declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made, the possession of the land was not taken over by the Government or by the competent authority. Therefore, on bare reading of the provisions, it can be said that by virtue of repeal, vesting of the land of the first petitioner in the State by virtue of declaration made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, is not saved. A submission on behalf of the State Government was made that by virtue of declaration made subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in relation to the petitioners' land, the land has vested in the Government, but there is no provision in the Repeal Act which divest the State Government of the ownership of the land. In our opinion, this submission has no substance. Firstly, because the purpose of enacting section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act is to save or protect vesting of vacant lands in the State Government and out of the vacant lands that might have vested in the State Government by virtue of declarations made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, only vesting of those lands in the State Government of which possession has been taken has been saved. Therefore, by necessary implication it follows that vesting of those lands in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act of which possession has not been taken has been repealed or made ineffective. Vesting of the lands in the State Government had occurred because of the Principal Act which has been repealed. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of "India Tobacco Co.Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore & others, (1975)3 Supreme Court Cases 512" has observed that "Repeal" connotes abrogation or obliteration of one statute by another, from the statute book as completely "as if it had never been passed". Therefore, the effect of the repeal is to wipe out the statute from existence. Therefore, the normal effect of repeal is to wipe out everything done under the repealed statute except that which is saved either expressly or by necessary implication. In the same judgment i.e. "India Tobacco Co.Ltd." the Supreme Court has observed that the repeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance, depending upon the intention of the Legislature. If the intention of the legislature in repealing the enactment was to abrogate or wipe off the former enactment, wholly or in part, then that enactment will cease and would be deemed to have never exist at all, in so far as the part which the Legislature wants to wipe out totally is concerned. The principal submission of the State Government is that as the land of the petitioners has vested in the State Government because of the declaration made sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act and as there is no express provision made in the Repeal Act wiping out vesting of the land in the State Government, the State Government will continue to be the owner of the land. In our opinion, the submission has no substance. As indicated above, if it is assumed that there was no saving clause contained in the Repeal Act or had there been no section 6 of the General Clauses Act in existence then mere repeal of the enactment will wipe out the enactment out of existence and everything done under the enactment will also go away, and in this situation, therefore, to avoid that effect, the legislature enacts saving clause and the Parliamen t has also enacted section 6 of the General Clauses Act to save certain things from the effect of repeal. Therefore, it follows that except for that which is saved by the legislature by making specific provision or in the absence of specific provision by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, everything else under the Repeal Act is wiped out. In the present case by the saving clause contained in Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act what is saved is vesting of the land in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act possession of which was already taken over by the Government. In other words, therefore, vesting of land in the State Government in relation to those lands of which possession was not taken is wiped out. This position also becomes clear from the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. Subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Repeal Act is in the nature of a proviso or exception to section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act. If subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act had not been enacted, vesting of even those lands in the State Government in relation to which the amount has been paid by the State Government to the land owner but possession has not been taken, will also stand wiped out. Because of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, now the land continues to be vested in the State Government though the possession of the land was not taken till the owner pays back the amount received by him. Had subsection (2) not been enacted because of the operation of section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act, the vesting of the land in the State Government would have been wiped out because the possession is not taken and the land owner would be entitled to retain the amount received by him from the State Government as also the land. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act was enacted by the legislature to ensure that the Government gets back the amount which is paid by it before the land reverts to the land owner. In other words the effect of the provision of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act is to postpone cancellation of vesting of the land in the State Government till the land owner pays back the amount received by him. In the case covered by Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, the land owner gets back title of the land only on payment of the amount that he had received under the Act from the government. In our opinion, what is contained in Section 4 of the Repeal Act also indicate that vesting of those lands possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government will revert back to the land owner. It is to be seen that the land is, by operation of the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, vested in the State Government, so that the State Government can deal with that land under the Principal Act. Perusal of Section (4) of the Repeal Act shows that only the provisions of Section 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act continue to operate even after the repeal in relation to the land of which possession has been taken. In other words, after 29.11.2007 the provisions of Section 11,12,13 and 14 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government in relation to the land of which possession has not been taken. Thus, if it is held that even after the Repeal Act, the State Government continues to have title of the land of which it has not taken possession, then it will mean that the Government has become title holder of the land without paying any amount to the land owner and with no possibility of amount being determined and paid under Section 11 of the Principal Act because those provisions do not continue to apply after the repeal in relation to the lands possession of which has not been taken. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to refer to the scheme of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Section 10 of the Principal Act reads as under: "10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit: (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that (i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and (ii) the claims of all person interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under subsection (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such others as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under subsection (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under subsection (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. (4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under subsection (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under subsection (3) (i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land. (5) where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under subsection (3), the competent authority may by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under subsection (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation: In this section, in sub section (1) of Sec. 11 and in sections 14 and 23, "State Government", in relation to (a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central Government; (b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in the Union Territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act,1924, means that State Government." Perusal of the above provisions shows that vesting of the land in the State Government occurs on publication of notification in the official Gazette under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thereafter, the competent authority gets power to make order directing the person who is in possession of the land to surrender or deliver the possession of the land to the State Government, and if that person does not deliver the possession then the Competent authority becomes competent to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thus, after 29.11.2007, the provisions of subsection (5) and subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government, therefore, in relation to that land with respect to which declaration under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made but possession has not been taken, the Competent authority will not be entitled to make an order directing the person in possession of the land to deliver the possession to the Government nor the Competent authority would be entitled to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act on failure of the person in possession to deliver the possession. Thus, the State Government will not be in a position to take possession of the land under the provisions of the Principal Act, it will also not be in a position to to determine the compensation of the land under Section 11 of the Principal Act and make payment to that compensation to the interested persons under Section 14 of the Principal Act. Section 4 of the Repeal Act keeps the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 relating to determination of amount and payment of amount alive only in relation to the land possession of which has been taken by the Government. In our opinion, therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the Repeal Act that as a result of the Repeal Act neither any proceedings can continue nor the State Government can claim that the land continued to vest in it if possession of the land in relation to which declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made, has not been taken before 29.11.2007. In other words to claim that vesting of the land in the State Government is saved, it will have to be shown by the State Government that the possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act has been taken by the Government before 29.11.2007. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and the fact that physical possession all through out remained with the petitioner, especially when the Government has not taken paper possession, nor any panchanama was made in view of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, the proceedings abate and now the petitioner cannot be ask for recovering possession and now there is no question of taking possession. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)