All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: 24-WP-6807-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 Sanjay Hanuman Pandey .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents ******* Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P.Singh for Respondent No. 1-UOI. Mr. Y.D.Patil, AGP for the State. ******* CORAM: A. A. SAYED & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 13 th JUNE,2022 P.C. :- Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Bench. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.) YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Digitally signed by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2022.06.15 14:12:07 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 Sanjay Hanuman Pandey ....PETITIONER V/S Union Of India And Ors ....RESPONDENT Ashok M. Saraogi for Petitioner Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA, JJ DATE : 12th September, 2022 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner , stand over to 17/10/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 ……. Sanjay Hanuman Pandey … Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and Others … Respondents. Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Ms R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Anil K. Singh i/b Mr. D. P. Singh for Respondent No. 1. ……. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 25 September 2023. P.C. : The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that there are substantial amendments will have to be carried out to pursue the petition further. He states that the petition would be withdrawn and petition joining the correct parties and giving particulars would be filed. In view of this prayer, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn as above. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4666 OF 2005 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal ) Corporation, Sangli and another ).. Petitioners Versus Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha ).. Respondent Mr.N.V.Walawalkar for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M.Dharap with Mr.Helekar for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST JULY 2005 P.C.: . Leave to amend. This Petition is directed against the order dated 4th April 2005 passed below Exhibit U-13 in Reference (IT) No.6 of 1996 by the Industrial Tribunal, Sangli. According to the Petitioners, the Reference was made between the Miraj Municipal Council and the Miraj Kamgar Union. However, the Miraj Municipal Council is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, some of the demands which have been referred may not be applicable and cannot be decided by the Tribunal. He submits that, for instance, Demand No.8 is in respect of the permanency of workmen. The Corporation will now have to decide the seniority based on all employees and not just of Miraj Municipal Council. The Corporation is made up of several Municipal Councils and, therefore, seniority of all the employees will have to be determined. This submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. Permanency is a dispute which is between those specific employees and the Council which is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation. After these workmen are made permanent, it is always open for the Corporation to decide the inter-se seniority of all the workmen including that of other Municipal Councils who are now their employees. The other submission made on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Tribunal cannot decide the Reference in view of the new Corporation coming into existence by the merger of three Municipal Councils. It is submitted that the scope of the Reference is enlarged by incorporating the Petitioners as a party to the Reference. The Industrial Tribunal has considered the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and has rightly not accepted this submission of the Petitioners. Hence, Writ Petition rejected.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3466 OF 2021 M/s Laxmi Agni Components & .... Petitioners Forging Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge …. Respondents & Ors. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Ajay Vazirani, Mr. Pratik Kothari and Mr. Avi Kshirsagar i/by Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioners. Mr. Zakir Shaikh for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 28TH JULY, 2021 P.C.: Heard. Issue notice to the Respondent for final disposal, returnable on 30th August, 2021 . Mr. Shaikh, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Dusane 2/2 28 WP 3466.2021.doc 3 In addition to service of notice through Court, the Petitioners shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery or by e-mail/fax on the Respondent and shall file affidavit of service with tangible proof before the returnable date**.** Further proceedings shall remain stayed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pratik Kothari i/by Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioner. Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh for Respondent No. 1 to 4. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN W. SAMBRE J DATE : 30th August, 2021 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner , stand over to 14/09/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 LAXMI AGNI COMPONENTS AND FORGING ….PETITIONERS PRIVATE LTD AND ANR V/s. SOU PHULABAI PANDURANG LANDGE …..RESPONDENTS AND ORS Mr. Jesse Cornelious i/b Lexicon Law Partners for the Petitioners Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: APRIL 20, 2022. P.C.: Perused the praecipe tendered in this Court under the signature of Partners for Lexicon Law Partners therewith email dated 20/04/2022 singed by the Petitioner. As such, appearance of Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioners stands discharged. Since the Petitioner has not taken any steps to engage new lawyer to pursue the matter, Petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] ISM

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 29th November, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 13/12/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2918 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. DIGE, JJ DATE : 9th January, 2023 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: WP.3466.2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2918 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd & Anr. PETITIONERS V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge & Ors. RESPONDENTS Mr. Pratik S. Kothari for Petitioner. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J DATE : 31st MARCH, 2023 P.C.: This matter is circulated at the instance of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. However, nobody appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 today. Hence, stand over to 18/07/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till then. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Private Ltd. And anr. ...Petitioners : V/s : Sou. Phulabai Pandurag Landge and Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. ...Petitioners : V/s : Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare & Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Anand Pai i/by. Mr. Pratik Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP-3466-2021 and for the Respondent in Writ Petition No. 3051/2022. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 8 August 2023. P.C. : Mr. Pai, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 would invite my attention to order dated October 10, 2019 passed by the Trial Court rejecting application for amendment of the plaint at Exhibit-69. I have also gone through the application at Exhibit-69 which clearly made a reference to the transactions effected by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Abhayraj Kapoor (Petitioners). By way of application at Exhibit-69, the Plaintiffs sought to incorporate a prayer challenging not only the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney dated October 9, 2006 executed in favour of Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel but also 'further documents' executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Petitioners. Prima-facie, therefore it appears that the Plaintiffs had sought to incorporate a prayer to challenge all the transactions executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 by way of application for amendment filed at Exhibit-69. The application at Exhibit-69 was rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated October 10, 2019. Later, the Plaintiffs filed another application for amendment at Exhibit-81, this time seeking to challenge sale-deeds dated December 8, 2006 and December 7, 2009 which are executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Abhayraj Kapoor. The only distinction that I see in application at Exhibit-69 and the application at Exhibit-81 is that while the application at Exhibit-69 did not specify the exact dates and nature of transactions executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel, the application at Exhibit-81 described the nature of transactions and dates of execution thereof. Thus, the purpose behind seeking amendments under applications at Exhibit-69 and Exhibit-81, prima-facie appears to be the same. The Trial Court has proceeded to allow the application at Exhibit-81 by order dated June 16, 2021 which is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. The Plaintiffs have filed Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 challenging order dated October 10, 2019 rejecting application for amendment at Exhibit-69. Though the order was passed on October 10, 2019, Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 appears to have been filed in September, 2021. Mr. Pai, would submit that the only reason behind filing of Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 at such a belated stage is the realisation on the part of the Plaintiffs that the rejection of application at Exhibit-69 would come in the way of the Plaintiffs in defending Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. He further submits that challenging order rejecting application under Exhibit-69 after filing of Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 would clearly establish that both applications under Exhibits-69 and 81 were filed for introducing same amendments qua Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. Today, none appears on behalf of the Original Plaintiffs in either of the petitions. However since the board was notified at 12 noon today, it would be inappropriate to proceed further with hearing of the petitions. Stand over to August 23, 2023. SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.08.09 10:17:24 +0530 8-WP-3466-2021 &10-WP-3051-2022.odt 8 August 2023. Neeta Sawant

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh for Respondent in WP/3466/2021 and For Petitioner in WP/3051/2022. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 7th September, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 26/09/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 26th September, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/10/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 12th October, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/12/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 6th December, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 20/02/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Zakir M Shaikh for Petitioner in WP/3051/22 & Respondent No.1 to 4 in WP/3466/21 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 22nd July, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 13/08/2024 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Pratik Kothari for Petitioner in WP/3466/21 & Respondent NO. 9 & 10 in WP/3051/22 Mr. Zakhir M. Shaikh for Petitioner in WP/3051/22 & Respondent in WP/3466/21 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 13th August, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 14/08/2024 ( F. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare and Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Private Ltd. and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. .. Respondents .................… Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP No.3466 of 2021. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Pratik Kothari, Advocates for Petitioners in WP No.3466 of 2021 and Respondent Nos.9 and 10 in WP No.3051 of 2022. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2024. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ 23.wp.3051.22+.doc Petition No.3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.3466 of 2021 and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3466 of 2021 and Respondent Nos.9 and 10 in Writ Petition No.3051 of 2022. 2. Today, learned Advocates have filed Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024 which are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Parties have reconciled their disputes and differences and filed Minutes of Consent Order. The said Minutes are signed by the Advocates for Petitioners and Respondents whose signatures are appended at page No.4 of the Minutes of Consent Order on instructions received by them. 3. Minutes of Consent Order are running into 4 pages. For the sake of reference and convenience, the same are scanned and reproduced below for benefit of the parties:- Servin S " X" mandon 18 with IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC WRIT PETITION, 3466 OF TURE AT BOMBAY CTION 2021 LAXMI AGNI COMPONENTS AND FORGING PRIVATE LTD. & A VS SOU. PHULABAI PANDURANG LANGDE & Ors ) Anr ) Petitioners ) ) Respondents AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC WRIT PETITION. 3051 OF 2 TURE AT BOMBAY CTION 2022 SOU. PHULABAI PANDURANG LANGDE & Ors VS ) ) Petitioners ARUNA BHAUSAHEB & ORS. ) Respondents MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021 who is also the Respondent No. 9 to 10 in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 ( "said Suit" ) AND the Respondent No. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021 who are also the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 hereby agree that both writ petitions and disputes concerning between them in Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 filed in the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune can be worked out on the following terms:- 2 2 The Original Plaintiff and Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021, agree that they shall now proceed and seek reliefs against the Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in Regular Civil Suit No. Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 filed in the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. Having regards to the aforesaid the Original Plaintiffs withdraw the said "Exhibit 69" and "Exhibit 81" filed in the said Suit and as such, the impugned Orders dated 10 th October, 2019 (subject matter of challenge in WP No. 3051 of 2022) and Order dated 16 th June, 2021 (subject matter of challenge in WP No. 3466 of 2021) are set aside by consent. It is agreed that as no substantive reliefs are being sought by the Original Plaintiffs against the original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 and the Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 shall only be continued as formal parties to the suit for the purpose of execution of decree, if any that may be passed in the said Suit. It is clarified that the claim of the Original Plaintiffs against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 will remain so far as it relates to the other suit properties except those purchased by original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 vide; 3 a. Agreement / Sale Deed dated 8 th December, 2006 bearing registration serial no. 8147/2006; b. Agreement / Sale Deed dated 8 th December, 2006 bearing registration serial no. 8148/2006; c. Agreement / Sale Deed dated Ph February, 2009 bearing registration serial no. 6333/2009. The original Plaintiff shall be at liberty to claim allocation and adjustment in respect of their shares against Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 only and not against Defendant Nos. 9 and 10. It is further clarified that the Original Plaintiff shall not be entitled to claim in the said suit or even otherwise the properties that are purchased by Defendant No. 9 to 10 vide the aforesaid three sale deeds / documents and the area of the properties described in the said 3 Sale Deeds / documents shall be reduced from the share of Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from the properties that are subject matter of the suit i.e properties described at 1(a) to 1 (d) without in any manner affecting the rights of Defendant Nos. 9 to 10. In terms of the above, the original Plaintiff has expressly and unconditionally given up their challenge to the aforesaid three agreements and sale deed executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 9 & 10. 4. Rights and obligations as stated in the above Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024 are taken as undertaking given to this Court. Parties shall abide by the same. 5. Order in terms of Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024. 6. In view of the above, both Writ Petitions are disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6259 OF 2001 ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ---- CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 15th September 2004 P.C. : Heard Mr.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. None present for any of the Respondents though they have engaged Advocates. No reply has been filed by Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra, although this matter is pending since December 2001 and a specific order was passed on 30th June 2004 asking the 1st Respondent-State of Maharashtra to file a reply. No reply has been filed by either of the Respondents. An interim order has been running in favour of the Petitioner since 26th December 2001. admit the Petition. The interim order passed earlier will continue to operate till the disposal of the Petition. Hearing expedited. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (NISHITA MHATRE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4519 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4544 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4903 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4949 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6259 OF 2001 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED: 18TH OCTOBER, 2005 P.C. : ... . These petitions have been wrongly tagged together probably because they are filed by the same advocate. Except that similarity there is no other similarity in these petitions. On the request of Mr.Mendadkar, office to separate this petition and list them independently.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6259 OF 2001 Shri Mohanlal Pandhari Nandanwar ..... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents. ------ Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ------- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 29 th January, 2008. P.C.: On the motion made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Petition is permitted to be withdrawn. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to make representation to Respondent No.3. for protection of his services. In case, such a representation is made, the Government shall consider it in accordance with law. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, 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: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1944 OF 2003 Shri Devidas Sadashiv Savale aged adult, P.B. No.9684, H.A.L. Aircraft Division, Nasik ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims Nasik Division, Nasik through its Deputy Director (R) and Member-Secretary, having its office at Adivasi Vikas Bhavan Old Agra Road, Nasik Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. through its Deputy General Manager (Planning and Tooling) and Disciplinary Authority, Aircraft Division, Nasik Executive Magistrate Niphad Dist., Nasik ... Respondents Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 Mr.A.M. Vernekar for Respondent No.3 CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 27, 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.): . The Petitioner questions the invalidation of his caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The facts in this case are not disputed. The Petitioner is in employment with Respondent No.3 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited since 1978. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential notifications issued under Article 342 (1) of the Constitution of India. He was issued a caste certificate by the Executive Magistrate, Niphad, who was then the Competent Authority to issue such a certificate. It appears that the caste certificate was then sent for verification by the employer to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe claims. This was done in 1994. The Petitioner appeared before the Committee without prejudice to his contention that the Committee was acting without jurisdiction. The caste certificate of the Petitioner was invalidated by the Committee on coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner did not belong to the Mahadeo Koli Tribe on 19.10.1995. Consequent upon the caste certificate being invalidated, the employer issued a chargesheet to the Petitioner alleging misconduct on the part of the Petitioner for having obtained employment on the basis of a false caste certificate. A domestic enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A second show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 27.1.2003 directing the Petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition. When the petition was admitted on 25.8.2003, interim relief was granted injuncting the Respondents from terminating the services of the Petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner furnished an undertaking on 22.8.2003 averring that he would not claim any benefit as a member of the Mahadeo Koli tribe while in employment with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The principal contention raised in this Petition is that the caste certificate has been invalidated by a Committee which had no jurisdiction to do so. There is no dispute that it was only by a Government Resolution issued on 11.6.1998 that such certificates could be verified by the scrutiny committee. These Committees which were functioning earlier by the Government Resolution of 23.1.1995 were reconstituted and conferred a specific jurisdiction enabling them to verify the caste certificates of employees of Central Government undertakings. By this Government Resolution, the Committee has been given wider powers than the earlier committee. The contention of the Petitioner that the jurisdiction to scrutinise the claims of employees of Respondent No.3 was conferred upon the Committee only by Resolution of 11.6.1998 therefore, must be accepted. In our opinion, therefore, the invalidation of the Petitioner's caste certificate by the Committee by its order dated 19.10.1995 cannot be sustained as the Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference made by the employer. In the case of Bhaskar Sitaram Koli v/s. Executive Magistrate, Thane & Ors., (W.P. 1414 of 1995) the Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us Palshikar, J. was a Member), this Court has already held that the jurisdiction of the Committee to scrutinise the claims of the employees in respect of their caste was conferred upon it for the first time on 11.6.1998. The reference made in 1994 by the employer to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the invalidation of the certificate by the Committee is therefore, set aside. The action taken by the management pursuant to the invalidation of the caste certificate also cannot be sustained and, therefore, must be quashed and set aside. However, it would be open to the employer to refer the certificate obtained by the Petitioner in 1975 for verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which has been constituted pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 11.6.1998. Assuming the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds that the certificate issued to the Petitioner needs to be invalidated, the Petitioner who has been in service since 1978 will be continued in service and not be subjected to any disciplinary proceedings on this count. Rule is, thus, made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

Order - Status 4: 39.6391.23 wp.doc Iresh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav LHR ….Petitioner of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav V/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav ….Respondents LHR of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and others Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the State Ms. Priya Pandey a/w Jackie for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent No. 4 CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 19 th MAY, 2023. (VACATION COURT) P.C. :- This Petition is filed to challenge the order dated 3rd May 2023 passed in Appeal No. 283 of 2022. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that by the said order, the order of stay granted on 17th March 2023 has been vacated. He invited my attention to the order dated 17th March 2023, by which there was an order of statusquo granted. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on instructions states that possession of the offending structure is already taken on 1st March 2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that such a statement was never made during the hearing before the concerned authority. In view of the rival contentions raised by all the parties, parties are directed to file their respective Affidavits placing on record the exact status of the offending structure. Since there was an order of status quo passed on 17th March 2023 in Appeal No. 283 of 2022, it will be in the interest of justice to direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they will not create any third-party interest in the alternate structure as regards the offending structure till the next date. Respondents are at liberty to file their respective Affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within a period of one week thereafter. Stand over to 16th June 2023. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 of 2023 Baban S. Jadhav LHR of Smt. Parvati S. Jadhav …Petitioner V/s. Sujata H. Jadhav LHR of Hiroji D. Jadhav and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane for the Petitioner. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 21.06.2023. P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. List on 5 July 2023. The interim order, if any, to continue till the next date. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 … … Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Jackie Jain, Advocate for Respondent no.1. 1/1 Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State. Mr. Ankit S. Dubey, Advocate for Respondent no.4. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2023. P.C. : At the request of learned Counsel for Respondent no.1, stand over to August 2, 2023. Interim order to continue till then. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.07.24 11:34:31 +0530 28-WP-6391-2023.doc Neeta Sawant

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT Adv.ABHIJEET P RANE for Petitioner Mr.A.P. Vanarase - AGP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 6th October, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 13/10/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 13th October, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/12/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: 18-wp-6391-2023.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri Baban Shanakar Jadhav Lrs of Smt Parvati Shankar Jadhav … Petitioner vs. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lrs of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors … Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane a/w. Swarta Suryawanshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav a/w. Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent no.4. Mr. Dilip Shukla a/w. Ms. Priya Pandey i/b. Jackie Jain for Respondent no.1. Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21 st FEBRUARY, 2024 P.C. :- Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to annex copy of Annexure-II on the basis of which petitioner claims that Parvatibai had right to get alternate premises. The petitioner to also annex copy of the appeal memo filed before the Competent Authority. Necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Stand over to 18th March 2024. The respondents are at liberty to file affidavit if necessary in response to the amendment. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE: 18 th MARCH 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 61 to 71 22nd April 2024 72 to 82 23rd April 2024 83 to 93 26th April 2024 94 to 106 29th April 2024 107 2nd April 2024 108 to 126, 128 to 136 3rd May 2024 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 ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Iresh

Order - Status 19: common order.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 3rd MAY 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 77 to 91 23rd June 2024 92 to 112 1st July 2024 113 to 133 2nd July 2024 134 to 155 5th July 2024 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 ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 22: 42wp6391-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 ————— Baban Shankar Jadhav LRs. of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ... Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav LR.s of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet Rane, for the Petitioner. Mr.Jackie Jain, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav i/by Mr.Ankit s. Dubey, for the Respondent No.4. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for the Respondents-State. ————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 01, 2024 P. C. : 1. By this Petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee dated 3rd May, 2023 in Appeal No.283 of 2022, challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 15th October, 2022, by which the Application filed by the Petitioner seeking inclusion of his name in the Annexure-II came to be rejected. 2. By order dated 15th October, 2022, the Additional Collector noted that the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in Annexure-II at Serial No.128 and his name has also reflected in the voters list of 42wp6391-23 1995 for Ward No.427, at Serial No.597, T-1 and that on the basis of photo-pass which was issued, his illegibility has been determined. As regards the petitioner's mother, it was noted that the name of Petitioner's mother was included in the voters list for Ward No.427 at Serial No.599, T-2 and that both these structures appear to be different. The submissions which were advanced before the Additional Collector was that the Petitioner's mother was residing at Bandra and thereafter was allotted the hut at Kandivali where she was residing till 1997 and thereafter due to her old age, she started residing at her native place. It was contended before the Additional Collector that her brother started residing in the said hut without having any right to reside therein. It was further contended that the Respondent No.1 has also been issued the photo-pass in respect of the said hut and that on the basis of fraudulent documents, the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in Annexure-II. 3. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order has dismissed the Appeal by upholding the findings of the Additional Collector that there are two different structures of the parties and that the delay has not been explained. The Appellate Authority further held that the Appellant has failed to produce any document on record to show that the Respondent No.1 by misleading the Authorities has inserted his 42wp6391-23 name in Annexure-II. 4. Mr. Rane, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother was staying in Bandra at Zopdi No.REGE/Bandra/165. After the relocation to Kandivali, new Identity Card was issued having Serial No.84411. He submits that Identity Card No.0408308 was issued in name of petitioner's mother against Hut No.REGE/Bandra/165, C.S.No.163 (Part) Village Akorli. He would further submit that the Respondent No.1 had in fact, divided the hut into two different structures and had thereafter claimed right in respect of the part of the structure which was in his possession which is impermissible in law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4-Developer submits that the entire scheme has been completed and the possession has already been handed over to the eligible slumdwellers. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. Although the application which was made by the Petitioner was for deciding his eligibility and for inserting his name in Annexure-II, it appears that the submissions which were canvassed before the Collector was confined to the fraud which is alleged to have been committed by the Respondent No.1 by including his name in Annexure-II. The order of the Appellate Authority also indicates that the same submissions were advanced that the Respondent No.1 without any right in the property has started occupying the hut after the petitioner's mother in the year 1997 left the premises to reside at her native place. 8. Upon consideration of the material produced on record, the Additional Collector as well as the Appellate Authority has noted from the documents that the name of the Respondent No.1 is in respect of her different hut i.e. T-1 and in the voters list, the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in respect of Ward No.427 at Serial No.597 whereas the Petitioner's mother name appears in the voters list in the year 1995 in Ward No.427 at Serial No.599 in respect of T-2. Based on these documents both the authorities have held that there are two different structures. The submission which is now sought to be canvassed that the hut was divided by the Respondent No.1 into two different parts and thereafter separate record was prepared is not the case of the Petitioner either in the application or in the submissions canvassed before the Collector and the Appellate Authority. The application of the Petitioner pleads that in respect of the said hut, it is the Petitioner who has a right being the legal heir of the original occupant and the Respondent No.1 has prepared fraudulent document and has got himself declared eligible in Annexure-II. 9. Considering that the findings of the Additional Collector and the Appellate Authority is that there are two different structures of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1, the Authorities were required to decide the eligibility of the Petitioner in respect of her own hut structure which does not appear to have been done. The Authorities appears to have considered the submissions advanced by the Petitioner qua the fraudulent manner in which the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in place of the Petitioner's mother in respect of the said hut in Annexure-II. 10. Be that as it may. As both the authorities have held that there are two different structures, let an appropriate application be filed by the Petitioner before the Additional Collector within a period of four weeks. The application to be decided by the Collector on its own merits and in accordance with law. 11. As the proceedings are pending since 2013, the Additional Collector is requested to decide the same expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the receipt of the application. Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms. 12. Needless to clarify that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5822 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4180 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4181 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5828 AND 5829 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearance, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. None for the parties. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 10 DECEMBER 2018. P.C. : 1] None for the petitioners. The note put up by the Registry indicates that the case papers are under search. The learned counsel for the petitioner (s)/petitioner(s) are directed to furnish a set of the petition papers for the purposes of reconstruction of the same to the Registry within four weeks from today. 2] The Registry is directed to publish a notice on the website to the aforesaid effect. 3] In case, no steps are taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner (s)/ petitioner (s) within four weeks from today, the Court will consider disposing of the matters on the ground of nonprosecution. 4] Place the matters on 30th January 2019 for directions. (M. S. SONAK, J.)