All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT Petition No. 1360 OF 2008 KailasPetitioner Balkrishna Patil (Through Jail) Vs. TheRespondent State of Magistrate & Ors. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. PC :- 1.The petitioner has filed the petition, seeking his release after serving sentence of 14 years, as life convict. Earlier he had moved an application which was rejected by the respondents on 12th April, 2006. On the last occasion, we had asked the learned Public Prosecutor to file a reply, stating as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be released in terms of the policy framed in April 2008. The reply has not been filed. Further time was sought to file the reply. 2.In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his release in terms of the policy framed in April 2008 and pass the speaking order within two weeks from today. 3.After passing of any such order, pursuant to above direction, such order be placed before us. S.O. to 20th August, 2008. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]

Order - Status 11: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 l -1- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda l of Coram, appearances, Court's l Orders or directions and l Registrar's orders. l Court's or Judges' Order i -i- - Mrs. P.H.Kantharia A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: October 8, 2008. P.C. Mr. Ashutosh Gole is hereby appointed as an advocate to conduct the petition on behalf of the accused who is in jail. Office is directed to furnish copy of the petition to the appointed advocate. S.O. to 14th October 2008. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 Kailas..Petitioner Balkrishna Patil V/s The..Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the Petitioner Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1.Heard. 2.Rule. Rule returnable immediately with the consent of the parties. 3.The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release from the jail in view of the provisions of Section 432, 433 of Criminal Procedure Code, remitting the entire portion of the sentence for his premature release under 14 years rule. The petitioner is in jail for a period as follows:- (a)Under trial period two years, 6 months, 20 days. (b)Actual sentence under gone 13 years, 7 months, 15 months. (c)Ordinary remissions and other remissions including State remissions 6 years, 1 month, 29 days. Total period with remissions is 22 years, 4 months, 4 days. 4.This was the position on the date when the return was filed by the State on 21st October, 2008. At that time the petitioner was classified under category 3(b) of the guide-lines dated 11/5/1992. But with new guide-lines introduced on 11th April 2008, this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines. The respondents accordingly considered the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines and passed an order dated 26th August, 2008 classifying him under category 4(c) of Annexure-1 and directed that he should be released after completion of the 24 years with remission subject to 14 years of actual imprisonment. 5.It is admitted position that the petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for more than 14 years. The only question which requires to be considered is as to how the petitioner is to be categorised and after completion of how many years with remission the petitioner is to be released. 6.Under new guide-lines of 2008 the petitioner has been categorised in category 4 viz. "for other reasons" and in sub-category, he has been categorised in 4(c) viz. "crime committed (a) above but with the premeditation or by gang or by a person having criminal history" and the punishment is shown to be 24 years in the said Annexure-1. What is important to be taken into consideration is that the classification of the accused under category 4 is basically incorrect, because from the final noting which have been prepared by the State, it appears that the deceased Ramesh was involved in criminal cases and as against him there were several offences registered and chapter cases were also filed. 7.From the facts of the case it transpires that some persons from the Mumbai desired to purchase agricultural property at Madhi and it is alleged that in order to see that those transaction are cleared, the deceased Ramesh was indulging in gundagiri and therefore the accused persons have come together and have committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, the act of murder has taken place as a result of land dispute. When the murder is committed in relation to land dispute, the same has been categorised in category 3 viz " murder arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition". Thus the categorisation by the respondents into category 4 is not just and proper. 8.The offence committed by the accused thus falls in category 3 as stated above. Since many persons have come together and have indulged in the said murder we further find the offence falls in sub-category (b) viz. "the crime committed as above with premeditation either individual or by gang". Therefore, assuming that the crime has been committed with premeditation still offence will fall under category 3(b) and not category 4(c) and thus we find that the order which has been passed by the respondents categorising the petitioner into category 4(c) by order dated 26th August, 2008 is not just and proper and we set aside the said order. 9It is also equally admitted position that with the remission the petitioner has completed more than 22 years imprisonment. Both the conditions are therefore satisfied i.e the petitioner has undergone actual punishment for 14 years and he has undergone 22 years with all remissions at his credit. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released from the jail. 10.We therefore direct the respondents that giving benefit of sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. and petitioner being classified into category 3(b),of the guide-lines dated 11-04-2008, he should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 11.Rule is made absolute in terms above and the petition is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1356 OF 2021 Shri. Ramchandra Shankar Sutar … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1354 OF 2021 Shri. Uttam Tukaram Sutar … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1343 OF 2021 Shri. Bhagwan Babaji Dhawale … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1352 OF 2021 Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1362 OF 2021 Shri. Dilip Gaurihar Dhawale (Dhangar) … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1359 OF 2021 Munni Adesh Deshmukh … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1361 OF 2021 Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1344 OF 2021 2021 L Shri. Govind Krishna Jadhav … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1357 OF 2021 2021 L Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1588 OF 2021 2021 L Shri. Maruti Ramaji Rodat (Jadhav) … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Dhananjay Chavan a/w Mr. Vijay Garad i/b. Mr. Rajendra A. Choudhary, Advocate for the Petitioners. i∕b. Mr. Rajendra A. Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent - State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. A S. TWA JADHAV & L, JJ. 25th AUGUST 2021. DATED : P.C. : In all these petitions, a common order is passed today because it involves the same question; only the factual aspect differs for each petitioner. The petitioners are Project Affected Persons whose lands were acquired for Koyna Dam Project way back in the year 1961. All these petitioners are still waiting for allotment of lands in lieu of the lands which were acquired. The petitioners have made applications before the authorities as follows :- Sr. No. Name Date of application 1. Shri. Ramchandra Shankar Sutar (WP/1356/2021) 24.07.2020 2. Shri. Uttam Tukaram Sutar (WP/1354/2021) 29.07.2020 3. Shri. Bhagwan Babaji Dhawale (WP/1343/2021) 20.05.2020 4. Shri. Dilip Gaurihar Dhawale (Dhangar) (WP/1362/2021) 29.05.2020 5. Sou. Munni Adesh Deshmukh (WP/1359/2021) 29.06.2020 6. Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage (WP/1357/2021) 29.05.2020 7. Shri. Govind Krishna Jadhav (WP/1344/2021) 24.07.2020 8. Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage (WP/1361/2021) 29.05.2020 9. Shri. Maruti Ramaji Rodat (Jadhav) (WP/1588/2021) 24.06.2020 10. Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage (WP/1352/2021) 29.05.2020 The Petitioners have mentioned in their applications that lands in different survey numbers situated in village Kundevahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad be allotted to them. The said applications are still not decided. The petitioners have prayed for allotment of lands. Applications are pending for quite sometime. The petitioners have not been given alternate lands for many years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the applications of the petitioners for allotment of alternate lands of their choice within 8 weeks from today. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4379 of 2005 M/s. Raymond Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V. Shreedharan with Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b. Mr. Prakash D. Shah for the Petitioners Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.H. Kantharia for the Respondents CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 20.07.2005. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Rule. The learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. It is made clear that this Petition is admitted only on the issue of "Res Judicata and Consequential Penalty" and it is also made clear that this Petition is not admitted on the main issue of "Valuation". Hearing expedited. (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4379 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION NO.4516 OF 2005 M/s. Raymond Limited … Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others … Respondents Ms. Ginita Bodani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Petitioner. Mr. J. B. Mishra for Respondents. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2021 P.C. : Heard Ms. Bodani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. It is seen that against the order-in-original bearing No.26/2001- Commissioner M-VI dated 09.10.2001, petitioner had filed appeal bearing No.E/3850/2001 before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench, Mumbai ('CESTAT' hereinafter). Again, assailing the order-in-original bearing No.27/2001- Commissioner M-VI dated 09.10.2001, petitioner had filed appeal bearing No.E/43/02 before the CESTAT. Against the order-in-original No.21/CEX/Commissioner/99 dated 19.05.2019, petitioner had filed yet another appeal before the CESTAT being E/2449/99. First two appeals pertained to the factories of the petitioner situated at Thane whereas the last mentioned appeal pertained to the factory situated at Chhindwara in the state of Madhya Pradesh. All the three appeals were heard together by the CESTAT and were disposed of by the common order dated 08.04.2005. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2005, petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No.4379 of 2005 (A.S.) before this Court which is pending. In the meanwhile, CESTAT modified its order dated 08.04.2005 by subsequent order dated 20.06.2005. This subsequent order has been put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.4516 of 2005 (A.S.). Both the matters are listed today on praecipe filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that Government of India has introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (briefly 'the scheme' hereinafter) for settlement of central excise and service tax disputes which have since been subsumed under the goods and services tax (GST). Petitioner had submitted declaration in respect of the two orders-in-original dated 09.10.2001 pertaining to the factories at Thane. Additionally, petitioner filed declaration under the scheme in respect of the factory at Chhindwara before the designated committee at Chhindwara. In so far the declarations pertaining to Thane factories are concerned, it is submitted that designated committee, Thane has accepted the tax dues declared by the petitioner pursuant to which petitioner has paid the amount determined by the designed committee. However, in so far the declaration pertaining to Chhindwara factory is concerned, the tax dues determined by the designated committee is much in excess of the dues declared by the petitioner and, therefore, the same has been put to challenge by the petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench in Writ Petition No.7087 of 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far the disputes pertaining to the orders-in-original both dated 09.10.2001 relatable to the factories at Thane are concerned, the matter has been settled and, therefore, in terms of the scheme, petitioner is required to withdraw the two writ petitions. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made for withdrawal of the writ petitions. In view of the above, we allow withdrawal of the two writ petitions pertaining to the orders-in-original dated 09.10.2001 relating to the factories at Thane. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of on withdrawal. Refund as per Rules. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.4379 of 2005 WITH WRIT PETITION No.4516 OF 2007 M/s. Raymond Limited ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Gihita Bodani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Petition in WP No.4379 of 2005 and WP 4516 of 2007 CORAM:- G. S.KULKARNI, J. RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE :- JUNE 9, 2023. P. C.: . Both the Petitions have already been disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 27th January, 2021. Hence removed form the board. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) ( G.S. KULKARNI, J. )

Order - Status 4: Uday S. Jagtap IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Bhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ..... ….. None for the petitioners Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the respondent - State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2022. P.C. The aforesaid petition has been circulated by the petitioner no.1, who appears in person. However, the petitioner is absent. Stand over to 16th November, 2022. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 5: 902-WP-2150-2022.doc SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2022.09.30 14:39:38 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Nana Dhondiba Desai – Petitioner in person. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2022 P.C. : Heard. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 17th November, 2022 . Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. In addition to Court notice, the petitioner who appears in person to serve the respondent no.2, by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. S. M. MODAK, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 8: 117-wp.2150.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai, Petitioner No.1 in-person. Mr. K. V. Saste, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1–State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & $R. N. LADDHA, JJ.$ : 17 th NOVEMBER 2022 $DATE$ $P.C.:$ Mentioned out of turn at 10:30 a.m. The petitioner No.1, who appears in person requests for taking up the matter today itself. Considering, there are 176 matters on board as well as $2.$ fixed and part-heard matters at 2:30 p.m., it is not possible to take up the aforesaid matter today. $overline{3}$ . Hence, list the matter under the caption 'For Direction' on 3 rd January 2023 at 2:30 p.m., for fixing date of hearing. $R. N. LADDHA, J.$ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Nana D. Desai, petitioner no.1 in person present in Court Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the respondent - State ….. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 3rd JANUARY, 2023. P.C. Vide order dated 29th September 2022, notice was issued to the respondents returnable on 17th November 2022. In addition to the Court Notice, the petitioner who appears in person, was directed to serve the respondent no.2 by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. We are informed by the petitioner no.1, who appears in person, that he has filed an affidavit of service in the Registry. So far as the office noting is concerned, perusal of the same shows that notice issued to the respondent no.2 is received back unserved with the remark "respondent is admitted in hospital for treatment of brain stroke". Hence, considering the office noting, we deem it appropriate to issue fresh notice to the respondent no.2, returnable on 23rd February, 2023. Notice to indicate that an endeavor shall be made to dispose of the petition finally at the stage of admission, time permitting. Learned APP to also ensure that the concerned officer of the concerned police station informs the respondent no.2 of the next date. In the meantime, till the next date, the trial Court shall defer the proceeding pending against the petitioners. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra $&$ Anr. Respondents Nana Dhondiba Desai – Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : $23^{rd}$ FEBRUARY, 2023 $P.C.$ : Mentioned out of turn at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner No.1, who appears in person, requests for a fixed date. Stand over to 20 th March, 2023 at 4.00 p.m. $2.$ PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 15: nob-wp-2150.22.doc BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2023.03.21 13:59:09 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents ****** Mr. N. D. Desai - Petitioner No.1, present in-person. Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State. ****** CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 20 th MARCH, 2023 P.C. :- . Not on board. Taken on board, as the regular bench is not available. Petitioner no.1, appearing in-person, states that he has come from Balgaum (Karnataka). He states that this matter was to be taken up today. He intends that the matter be listed on 23 March 2023, and be placed on the Supplementary Board, as previously ordered by the regular bench. Stand over to 23 March 2023, to be placed on Supplementary Board. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Nana D. Desai, Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Swarup D. Patil for Respondent No.2. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 27th MARCH, 2023. P.C. : Mr. Swarup Patil, learned counsel appears for Respondent No.2 seeks time to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.2 and also to file reply. Time is granted. Stand over to 10th April, 2023 High on Board. The interim order passed on 03.01.2023 is extended till the next date. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 18: GAIKWAD Date: 2023.04.11 10:24:08 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Bhondiba Desai and Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents ------------------- Mr. Nana D. Desai-petitioner in person . Mr. J.P. Yagnik-APP for the State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, J.J. DATED : APRIL 10, 2023. P.C. : . Petitioner is present in person. Nobody is present for respondent no.2. On 27th March 2023, Mr. Swarup Patil, learned Advocate had appeared for respondent no.2, he had sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2 and also to file reply. So far Vakaltnama has not been filed, reply also has not been filed on behalf of respondent no.2, as stated earlier respondent no.2 is absent and nobody is present on behalf of respondent no.2. In order to grant further opportunity to respondent no.2, put up on 25th April 2023 'High on Board'. Meanwhile, Investigating Officer to personally remain present before this Court on the next date together with copy of the charge-sheet. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date. (M.M. SATHAYE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Nana D. Desai, Petitioner in person. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w. Mr. Amar Parsekar, Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b. Mr. Swarup Patil, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023. P.C. : For the reasons separately recorded, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads as under:- "Wherefore the petitioners most humbly pray that F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 & charge-sheet / complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 / original complainant within the Chandgad Police Station vide F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 and Charge Sheet U/S 379, 411 R/w 34 of I.P.C., please be quashed and set aside, on such terms & conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Nana Desai Petitioner-in-person. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w Mr. Amar Parsekar, Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b Swarup Patil for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL 2023 : JUDGMENT (PER: M.M.SATHAYE,J.): Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1/State. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrP.C.), the Petitioners are praying for quashing of FIR No. 49 of 2015 registered with Chandgad Police Station, District Kolhapur for offences punishable SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2023.05.30 17:38:28 +0530 under Sections 379, 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also for quashing of the consequent Criminal Case bearing RCC No. 65 of 2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Chandgad, District Kolhapur. Office report shows that pursuant to interaction dated 02.06.2022, the Petitioner No.1 Mr. Nana D. Desai was found to be able to put forth his case appropriately before the Court and as such requirement of scrutiny by the Registrar under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, is duly passed by the Petitioner No.1. Accordingly, heard Petitioner No.1 Mr. Nana D. Desai, who appeared in person for and on behalf of all the Petitioners as their power of attorney holder. Heard Mr. Yagnik, learned APP for Respondent No.1- State and Mr. Raktate for Respondent No.2 original complainant/informant. Perused the record. Petitioner No.1 has taken us through the averments in the FIR filed by the Respondent No.2 as well as other documents produced by him on record. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No.2 along with other persons who are members of Chamber of Commerce, were demanding illegal amount of Rs.25,000/- from Petitioner No.2, who refused to pay and therefore, Respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the Petitioners in this case. Be that as it may. Since this is a petition for quashing, we have to go by the averments in the FIR, considering them at face value. Perusal of FIR dated 10.04.2015 shows that it is the case of Respondent No.2 that he has a karkhana by named Bell-steel Industries in the Industrial Estate at Shinoli. It is alleged that on 09.04.2015, at evening time when Respondent No.2 was strolling around the premises of his karkhana, he found that two couplings from his karkhana (worth Rs.5,000/- according to FIR) were missing. Therefore, it is alleged that he went to the Chamber of Commerce office and informed the committee members and they went to the The Petitioner No. 1's shop, who is a scrap dealer and inquired about it. It is alleged by Respondent No.2 that he found the two couplings in Petitioners' shop, which were stolen from his karkhana. So also it is alleged that some more stolen goods from one 'Dipanjali Metals' were also found in the shop of the Petitioners. It is alleged that when he inquired with Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 about the presence of the alleged stolen goods in their shop, no satisfactory answers were received and therefore, the FIR was lodged against the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and unknown people. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that this FIR is based on assumption that the Petitioners have purchased goods stolen from Respondent No.2's karkhana and one Dipanjali Metals. It is argued that Respondent No.2 himself has acted as if he is an Investigating Officer and has already concluded the issue about alleged theft and on this conclusion of theft, the FIR is filed. It is further argued that the police or the investigating agency is supposed to look into the veracity of the claim before registering the FIR and without that being done, the impugned FIR is registered under Section 379 (theft) and 411 (receiving stolen property dishonesty) of IPC. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/informant opposed this petition contending inter alia that the averments in the FIR are sufficient to attribute specific role to the Petitioners and that coupled with material collected during investigation, is sufficient to show that the Petitioners must face trial. Learned APP has taken us through the material collected during investigation. Careful reading of Section 378 of IPC (defining theft), shows that whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Taking these allegation in the FIR at its face value, it is not disclosed therefrom, how the Petitioners have taken dishonestly the alleged two couplings from karkhana of Respondent No.2. The FIR is filed after Respondent No.2 has himself taken up a role of investigating agency by gathering people from Chamber of Commerce, directly going to the shop of the Petitioners who are scrap dealers, finding out the alleged stolen couplings and identifying them, asking questions to Petitioners and then not being satisfied with their answers. This all is done without involvement of actual investigating agency i.e. police. We fail to understand how the police have accepted this usurpation of role by a private citizen such as Respondent No.2. It is not the case that Respondent No.2 has lodged complaint against unknown persons after finding that certain goods were missing from his karkhana and then during investigation, the Petitioners are found to be in possession thereof with stolen goods identified and therefore, they are accused. Also perusal of Section 410 of IPC (defining stolen property) shows that property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft is stolen property, but if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to it, then it ceases to be stolen property. In the matter at hand, the averments in FIR do not disclose clearly, how the so-called lack of satisfaction of Respondent No.2 about possession of the goods in the shop of Petitioners, can have any bearing on the issue of Petitioners being legally entitled to possess those goods or otherwise. In other words, the necessary ingredients of 'stolen property' and its alleged receipt by the Petitioners dishonestly (Section 411 of IPC), are not at all fulfilled. Another aspect worth noting is that the impugned FIR makes a reference to finding out certain goods allegedly stolen from Dipanjali Metals for which the Petitioners are accused. It is not case that this Dipanjali Metals have also filed any such complaint of theft. Overall, the manner in which Respondent No.2 has filed the impugned FIR and the manner in which its cognizance is taken, can not be sustained. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the impugned FIR and the consequent criminal case. The facts of this case, clearly cull-out a situation that falls in one of the exceptions carved out in the case of State of Haryana v/s. C. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Therefore, the Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, we pass following order: ORDER The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads as under:- "Wherefore the petitioners most humbly pray that F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 & charge-sheet / complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 / original complainant within the Chandgad Police Station vide F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 and Charge Sheet U/S 379, 411 R/w 34 of I.P.C., please be quashed and set aside, on such terms & conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6437/2016 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Kedar G. Prabhu for the petitioner CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2016 P.C.: At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is taken up out of turn. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he received instructions from his clients to withdraw the Writ Petition. To that effect, he made an endorsement on a farad. Same is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Same is accepted. Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. JUDGE

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Writ Petition No.3488 Of 2013. Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat :: Petitioner. -------------------------- ---- ------------- Versus. Zhilla Parishad Satara & Ors. :: Respondents. •• itespondents. Appearance :- Mr. Matugade i/b. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. None present for the Respondents. Coram :: V.M. Kanade, & F.M. Reis, JJ. Date :: th April, 2013. 8 P.C. : Issue notice to the respondents returnable after four weeks. (F.M. REIS, J.) (V.M. KANADE,J.) 1

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA, & G.S.PATEL,JJ. DATE : JULY 19,2013 P.C.: . The following matters on Balance BoardDaily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr.No. C.M.I.S.Date 42,43,44,901 31/07/2013 45,46,47,49,53,58,59,60,61,62, 63,64,65,904 01/08/13 50,51,52,905 02/08/13 54 05/08/13 55,56,57,910,911,912,913,914,915 08/08/13 . If in any of the above matters, ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (G.S.PATEL,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)

Order - Status 11: agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER FOR BALANCE DAILY / SUPPLEMENTARY BOARD DATED 1st AUGUST 2013 CORAM : A.S. Oka, & G.S. Patel, JJ. DATE : 1 st August 2013 P.C. : The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 7, 54, 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 89, 91 12/08/13 51, 52, 66, 90, 904, 906, 907, 909, 911, 913, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922 16/08/13 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 78, 79 28/08/13 75, 76, 77, 88, 901 13/08/13 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 912, 914 29/08/13 86 27/09/13 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (G.S. Patel, J.) (A.S. Oka, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA & G.S.PATEL, JJ DATE : 16TH AUGUST 2013 P.C: . On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. Adjourned date 57 ) 21st September 2013 58 ) 23rd September 2013 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72 and 73 ) ) 19th September 2013 62, 71, 76, 80, 81, 87, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 903 and 904 ) ) 30th August 2013 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 905 and 906 ) ) 20th September 2013 83 and 85 ) 21st October 2013 96 and 901 ) 26th August 2013 If any adinterim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (G.S.PATEL, J) ( A.S. OKA, J ) ---------------- -----------------

Order - Status 15: 903,906,907,909,910n912 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA & REVATI MOHITE­DERE, JJ DATE : 30TH AUGUST 2013 P.C: . On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. Adjourned date 50, 51, 52 and 54 ) rd October 2013 3 53 and 902 ) 12th September 2013 55, 56, 60, 910 and 912 ) th October 2013 4 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 903, 906 and 907 ) ) 20th September 2013 63 ) 25th September 2013 64 ) 19th October 2013 901 ) 26th September 2013 909 ) 21st September 2013 If any adinterim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If any adinterim or interim order is to operate till further orders, such orders shall remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (REVATI MOHITEDERE, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA, & REVATI MOHITE DERE,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20,2013 P.C.: . The following matters on Balance BoardDaily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr.No. C.M.I.S.Date 27,28,29,30,31,42,50,54,55,57,58,59, 64,65,66,70,71,74,904,905,906,907 07/10/2013 32,33,34,35,36,910 19.10.2013 37,38,39,40,41,43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 51,52,53,56,60,61,62,67 21.10.2013 68, 72 28.11.2013 69,76,77,78,80,85 22.10.2013 73 29.11.2013 75,79,81,82,83,84,86,87 08/10/13 901 01/10/13 902, 903 04/10/13 . If in any of the above matters, ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected.

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ DATE : 07th OCTOBER, 2013 P.C: . On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. Adjourned date 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ) 23rd October, 2013 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 ) 24th October, 2013 59 ) 15th November, 2013 60 ) 18th October, 2013 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 82, 92 19th October, 2013 64 ) 22nd October, 2013 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91 25th October, 2013 90, 93 ) 05th December, 2013 If any adinterim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If interim relief or adinterim relief is not granted for limited duration, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA AND REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 24, 2013. P.C. On account of paucity of time, as this Court was required to take up final hearing Board in the afternoon session, rest of the matters on daily board and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS, as mentioned below: Sr. Nos. Adjourned date/CMIS Date 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 ) 18th November, 2013 38, 41 ) rd 3 December, 2013 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, ) 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 901, ) 19th November, 2013 69, 70, 71, 72, 80, 81, 85, 89, 91, 92, ) 94, 95, 96, 904, 905 ) 20th November, 2013 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 84, 86, 87, ) 88, 90, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, ) 103, 105, 906 ) ) ) ) th December, 2013 4 82, 83, 104, 107, 108 ) 11th November, 2013 106 ) 28th November, 2013 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If interim relief or ad-interim relief is not granted for limited duration, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 27: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (Mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ..Petitioner. Vs. Zilla Parishad, Satara & Anr. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Tanaji Mahatugde i/b Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for Petitioner. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for State. CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 13th January 2015. P.C. Leave to add the State as party-Respondent. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the State. 2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is under suspension since 5th February 2013 consequent to the impugned order dated 5th February 2013 on the allegations of the incident which is described in the said order. It is submitted that the impugned order be stayed as it is passed without authority of law and even on merits, the order of suspension is not sustainable. 3 The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Zilla Parishad states that the Zilla Parishad has forwarded the proposal to the State government after holding preliminary enquiry by a communication dated 23rd April 2013 in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 28th March 2012. So far the State Government has not communicated its decision. 4 The facts reveal that on the incident which is reflected in the impugned order, the Medical Officer has been suspended and she continues to be under the suspension since 5th February 2013. So far no enquiry has been initiated against her. We find appropriate in the facts of the case that until further orders, the services of the Medical Officer could be made available to the rural people. 5 Prima facie, we are convinced to pass the following order: By way of an interim order, we stay the order of suspension. The Petitioner shall report to her duties at the earliest. 6 Stand over to 3rd February 2015. (A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) wp.3488-2013

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 15th December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 22/12/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 22nd December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 05/01/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 5th January, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 12/01/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 12th January, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 19/01/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 19th January, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 02/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 2nd February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 09/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 9th February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 16/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 23rd February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 02/03/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 43: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 2nd March, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 09/03/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 45: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 9th March, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 16/03/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 47: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 16th March, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till then. Stand over to 22/03/2017 on Supplementary Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 49: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade i/by Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar Advocate for Respondent No.1 And 2. Ms.Sushma Bhende AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 22nd March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 24/03/2017 for Passing Orders. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 53: 904.wp.3488.13.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (Mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ..Petitioner Vs. Zilla Parishad, Satara and Others ..Respondents Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh, for the Petitioner. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Sushma Bhnde, AGP, for the State. CORAM :- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- MARCH 24, 2017. P. C.: The Petitioner at the relevant time was posted at Primary Health Center and which was controlled by the Satara Zilla Parishad. 2 An order of suspension was issued by the then Chief Executive Officer of that Zilla Parishad on 5th February, 2013, which is under challenge. 3 While dealing with the challenge at ad-interim stage, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:- " Leave to add the State as party-Respondent. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the State. 2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is under suspension since 5th February 2013 consequent to the impugned order dated 5th February 2013 on the allegations of theincident which is described in the said order. It is submitted that the impugned order be stayed as it is passed without authority of law and even on merits, the order of suspension is not sustainable. 3 The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Zilla Parishad states that the Zilla Parishad has forwarded the proposal to the State government after holding preliminary enquiry by a communication dated 23rd April 2013 in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 28th March 2012. So far the State Government has not communicated its decision. 4 The facts reveal that on the incident which is reflected in the impugned order, the Medical Officer has been suspended and she continues to be under the suspension since 5th February 2013. So far no enquiry has been initiated against her. We find appropriate in the facts of the case that until further orders, the services of the Medical Officer could be made available to the rural people. 5 Prima facie, we are convinced to pass the following order: By way of an interim order, we stay the order of suspension. The Petitioner shall report to her duties at the earliest. 6 Stand over to 3rd February 2015." 4 That order is operative till date. 5 Mr. Warunjikar on the earlier occasion had sought time to take instructions and revert back to this Court as to whether the Petitioner indeed was allowed to report for duties. 6 Mr. Warunjikar produces photocopy of a communication received from the Satara Zilla Parishad and particularly signed by the District Health Officer dated 23rd March, 2017. That indicates that Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat now Mrs Sunita Nilesh Patil has been allowed to report for work but after permitting her to resume duties at the very Primary Health Center, later on, the District Health Officer has posted the Petitioner at some other Primary Health Center. She has, therefore, reported for work by joining duties at that Primary Health Center. The instructions are that the Petitioner is allowed to work. 7 In the light of the ad-interim order passed by this Court which ensures that a Primary Health Center has services of a qualified Doctor and particularly a lady Doctor, Aswale 3/5 we do not wish to proceed with this Writ Petition any further. The Petitioner admittedly was on deputation and to this health services of the Satara Zilla Parishad. She is stating that she is a State Government employee. The Satara Zilla Parishad is awaiting instructions from the Government as to whether the Satara Zilla Parishad can enquire into a misconduct of the Petitioner or it would be the employer who has appointed her on a substantive post who is empowered to hold such enquiry. 8 We only direct that if any written proposal for initiating a disciplinary enquiry against the Petitioner and from the Satara Zilla Parishad is pending consideration of the State Government, the Competent Authority therein should take a decision on this proposal and as expeditiously as possible. We direct that the decision be taken within two months, if such written proposal is pending consideration. 9 We dispose off the Writ Petition by confirming the ad-interim order but at the same time clarifying that neither Aswale 4/5 have we expressed any opinion on whether the Petitioner has committed any misconduct nor have we expressed our view on the powers of any particular authority to hold such disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, the issue of maintainability of such proceedings, jurisdiction of authority and equally the contentions on the merits of the charges, are kept open. They shall be gone into uninfluenced by the order in the Writ Petition. We take on record a communication addressed to Mr. Warunjikar and mark it "X" for identification. (B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5339 OF 2013 Shri Bartol Degin Farnat and Ors ..Petitioners Vs. Shri Pascol Manvel Gonsalves and Ors ..Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik,for the Petitioners. Mr. P. B. Shah i/b Mr. Kayval P. Shah,for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J. DATE : JULY 1, 2013. P. C.: 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the PetitionersPlaintiffs submits that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the road in question is of 20 feet wide and it has been reduced to 2.8 feet because of the obstruction created by the Defendants in the way. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner. However, there is no finding recorded, on prima facie assessment of the case on the question whether there existed 20 feet road and that it was reduced to 2.8 feet by the Aswale 1/2 5339.13.wp Defendants by creating obstruction. In the absence of any such finding, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The same needs to be quashed and set aside. The orders are required to be remanded back to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 3 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 4 The order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Trial court and also by the Appellate Court dated 12.04.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. 5 The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to decide Exhibit5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 159 OF 2009, afresh within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. 6 Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.07.2013. 7 The Trial Court is at liberty to grant adinterim relief, if such is claimed by the parties. ( RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4746 OF 2005 Miss Neha Achrekar. ... ... Petitioner v/s. Directorate of Technical Education. ... Respondent Mr.Mihir Desai with Mr.R.A.Rodrigues and Mr.B.V.Phadnis for petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for respondent. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ. DATE : 20th July 2005 ORAL ORDER : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner herein is seeking an admission to the management course either for MBA or MMS for the academic year 2005-2006 though the examination under the State Government. She has appeared for the Central Entrance Test (CET) held by the State Government and has passed the CET. Her only problem is that though she claims to belong to an Other Backward Class (OBC), she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate when she filled up the form. She has obtained it now and before the allotment of students to the colleges starts. That process is to be held tomorrow i.e. on 21st July 2005. Hence, urgency in the matter. -1- Considering the urgency of the matter, we issue Rule and make it returnable forthwith. Mr.Nargolkar, learned AGP, has fairly proceeded with the matter on instructions of one Mr.S.V. Kolla, Assistant Director (Technical), who is present in Court. He has opposed the reliefs in the petition without filing a reply. He has drawn our attention to the relevant rules in this behalf, which according to us, is sufficient by way of defence of the respondent. As stated above, the petitioner appeared for the CET held in February 2005. While filling the form, she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate. The instructions contained in the rules for admission to this course are annexed at Exhibit-A to the petition. In the rule on confirmation of submission of application forms at Application Receipt Centre (ARC), it is provided as under:- "If the ARC officer finds that the supporting documents are not enough to claim for a valid candidature then the submitted application form will not be accepted for any further processing. " -2- The petitioner, therefore, formed an impression that since she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate and if she applies in the O.B.C. category, her application will be rejected. She, therefore, filled up the form in the open category. It has so transpired that subsequently she did get the Non-creamy layer certificate on 15th June 2005. She did not have the caste certificate which was issued way back in the year 1994. As per the brochure of admissions in Annexure-4, it is provided in Clause-10 that confirmation of submission of online option forms of all types of candidates is permissible until 12th July 2005. The petitioner, therefore, gave a letter to the Authorities concerned on 12th July 2005 itself and produced her Non-Creamy Layer certificate and requested that her application be considered in the O.B.C. category. She was told orally that such an application would not be entertained. The petitioner's case is that if she claims through OBC, undoubtedly she has better chances of securing the admission. Mr.Desai, learned Counsel appearing for -3- the petitioner, submitted that when one reads the above-referred rule along with a subsequent Notification dated 4th July 2005, it will be clear that the approach of the respondent was too technical. He relied upon the subsequent Notification dated 4th July 2005 which provided as under:- " Those candidates who have submitted the application form in reserved category and were unable to submit the Non-creamy layer Certificate, Caste Certificate and hence converted to open category can submit the same at the time of confirmation of option form at ARCs for availing the benefits of reservation. " He submitted that this particular rule will have to be read to mean that those who have the documents in support showing the Non-creamy layer certificate status should be permitted to submit such documents at the time of confirmation of option which means up to 12th July 2005. Mr.Nargolkar, learned AGP appearing for the respondent, submitted that this relaxation of 4th July 2005 will apply to only those candidates -5 who have submitted the application forms in reserved category. It is only in case of such candidates who fail to give the Non-creamy layer certificates that they have been given this option to submit the same later-on until the confirmation of option. He further submitted that the petitioner has not stated in the application form that she belongs to the OBC and, therefore, now she cannot be permitted to produce the Non-creamy layer certificate. That facility could have been availed of only if she had applied originally for the OBC community. Mr.Desai countered his submission by pointing out that as per the rule which is included in the instructions to fill the form and which we have quoted earlier, if one did not have the necessary document at the relevant time, the application was liable to be rejected. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner had no option but to apply in open category. She has very fairly stated her position in her letter dated 12th July 2005. In his submission, a candidate like the petitioner herein should be entertained under the Notification of relaxation dated 4th July 2005. We have noted the submissions of both the Counsel. If a strict view is taken perhaps Mr.Nargolkar would be right in making the submission that he has made. However, while looking to this provision of relaxation, one has certainly to look to other instructions which are given while filling up the form. The petitioner herein honestly filled the form in the open category since she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate at the relevant time. A fact that she had been issued the caste certificate way back in the year 1994 is clear from the record. It is not an after-thought. Only the Non-creamy layer certificate remained to be obtained and on obtaining the same, she approached the Authorities within the limitation i.e. up to 12th July 2005. No prejudice is being caused to anybody inasmuch as she does have the certificate and she is making the same available to the Authorities within the time limit. It is not the case that she is giving the certificate any time thereafter. In a matter like this, a highly technical and rigid attitude is not expected from the Authorities as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & ors. reported in AIR 2004 S.C. 5043. In that matter, -6- the petitioner claimed an admission to a medical course on the footing that her father was in the armed forces and was a permanently disabled person. There was a slight delay in giving the relevant certificate. What the Apex Court observed in para-7 thereof is quite relevant. This para-7 reads as under:- " 7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the country. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. " Thus, as stated by the Apex Court, one must have the qualification at the relevant time, though the proof in support thereof may, in some cases, be made available a little later. In the present case, the petitioner did have the original documents of belonging to the OBC community and she also has the Non-creamy layer certificate. Both these documents are being made available before the cut off date. Surely, this will be a case which will be stronger than the one which was before the Apex Court as referred to hereinabove. In the circumstances, we allow this petition and direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's case as belonging to the reserved category and her application will be considered -8- -9 when the options and colleges are decided i.e. on 21st July 2005. Rule is made absolute as above. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (SMT. R.S.DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 7: ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2011 Pradip Shankar Rao @ Shervegar. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents None for petitioner. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 31, 2011. P.C. None appears for the Petitioner. Office note indicates that office objections have not been removed. We grant one week's time to the Petitioner by way of indulgence to remove office objections, failing which the Writ Petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court. Subject to above, Writ Petition to proceed as per its turn under appropriate caption. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)