Ram S Kulkarni

Order - Status 5: SALUNKE J V Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.13 17:42:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17167 OF 2022 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap } Petitioner Versus Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande } and Ors. } Respondents Ms. Radhali Kadam with Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. Gole for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for respondent no. 2. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little and Co. for respondent no. 4. Mr. Aditya A. Joshi i/b. Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for respondents 5 and 6 (MSETCL). CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE: JANUARY 13, 2023 P.C.: 1. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 seeks time to file affidavit in reply to the interim application. The reply shall be filed within one week from today. 2. Place the matter on 1st February 2023. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17167 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap ....Petitioner/Applicant V/S Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande & Ors. ....Respondents … Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Mr. A.R. Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for Respondent No.2-MSEB. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kiran Gavellkar i/b M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4-MSEDCL. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 7-State. … Mr. Abhijit Joshi for Respondent Nos.5 and 6-MSETCL. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 1st FEBRUARY 2023. P.C.: 1 We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant and the learned Advocates for the respective Respondents. 2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed Interim Application for amendment in view of the subsequent development. He submits that the Petitioner had challenged the appointment of Respondent No.1 initially with Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Fresh selection process was conducted by Respondent No.4 in which Respondent No.1 is selected as Director (Operations). The same is also against the rules. The rules require that a person with impeccable past history can be considered. The Respondent No.1 does not fit into it. 3 The learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the fresh appointment is by another employer, the cause of action of the Writ Petition now does not subsist. In view of that in a Writ Petition, for which the cause of action does subsist, amendment may not be allowed. 4 It is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that when the PIL was filed Petitioner was seeking writ of quo warranto qua appointment of Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Respondent No.4 conducted fresh selection process and has selected Respondent No.1 as Director (Operations). The same would be a completely fresh cause of action as the employer and the designation has changed. 5 In light of above, as the relief in the original Writ Petition itself has become infructuous, it would be improper to consider the present 2/3 Application for amendment. It is for the Petitioner to take appropriate steps by filing proceedings as may be maintainable. 6 In light of above, the PIL and Interim Application stands disposed of. The Petitioner may take proceedings as may be permissible under law. In that event all contentions of the Petitioner as well as respective Respondents are kept open. No costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.04 10:27:34 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2565 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1378 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. S.S.Kulkarni for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27th July, 2011. P.C. . Rule, returnable on 23rd September, 2011. 2 In addition to service of notice through Court, advocate for the Applicant shall serve private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by courier service and/or by hand delivery to the Respondent and shall file affidavit of service one week before the returnable date failing which the application will stand dismissed for nonprosecution. 3 There will be adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition that the Applicant will not create any third party rights and will not part with possession of the suit flat till the further orders. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2565 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1378 OF 2011 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Sachin Chavan i/b Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for the Applicant Mr.Pramod Pawar for the respondent CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23,2011 P.C.: 1 Time is sought by the contesting respondent. Stand over till 16th November 2011. Ad-interim relief granted on 27th July 2011 will continue to operate till further orders. JUDGE ssp

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2565 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1378 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Court's Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Sachin Chavan i/b Mr. S.S. Kulkarni for the Applicant. Mr. Pramodh Pawar for Respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED,J. DATE : 20/12/2011. PC: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application is preferred by the original defendant for stay of the judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.1808 of 2007 and for injunction restraining respondents from obstructing, interfering and/or in any other manner disturbing the peaceful possession and occupation of the applicant in respect of the suit property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. This court on 27th July, 2011 granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a). Both the counsel state that ad-interim relief granted on 27th July, 2011 may be continued till the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. By consent, ad-interim granted on 27th July, 2011 is confirmed, same to be continued till the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED, J.)