All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6504 OF 2004 Mohammed Maqbool Khan. .. Petitioner (Org.Defendant) Vs. Shaikh Riaysat Ali Driver. .. Respondent (Org.Plaintiff) -- Shri A.A.Mirza & N.Y.Shaikh for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Dani with Shri J.S.Yadav for the respondent. -- CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J DATED : 26th OCTOBER, 2004. P.C. Heard. The petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree which was passed against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 26th July, 2000. However, instead of taking up the matter on 26th July, 2000, it was taken up for hearing on 25th July, 2000, and thereafter it was adjourned to 20th September, 2000. But, the trial Court disposed of the matter on 11th August, 2000 itself i.e. much prior to the date fixed for hearing of the matter. The contention of the petitioner is that on 26th July, 2000, the petitioner's advocate appeared in the Court but having been informed by the clerk of the advocate that the matter was adjourned to 20th September, 2000, he did not attend the hearing of the matter which took place subsequent to the 26th July, 2000 i.e. much prior to 20th September, 2000. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the petitioner's contention in this regard while observing that the records do not disclose that the advocate for the petitioner himself having attended the Court either on 26th July, 2000 or any other date thereafter. Undisputedly, no steps were taken by the petitioner and his advocate to record their presence in the Court on 26th July, 2000, neither any application was filed for taking the matter on board on 26th July, 2000 if the matter was not listed for hearing on the same day on the board of the trial Court, nor attention was drawn of the trial Court regarding the appearance of the petitioner and his advocate in the Court on 26th July, 2000. It is not also the case of the petitioner that steps were taken to verify the adjourned date of hearing of the matter either on 26th July, 2000 or any time thereafter till 20th September, 2000. In case, the petitioner was genuinely interested in contesting the matter, certainly knowing well that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 25th July, 2000 or 26th July, 2000 as alleged by the petitioner, for regarding of evidence, he would have certainly verified as to what had happened on 25th July, 2000 in order to avoid the consequence of ex part proceeding against the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner did not bother to know anything about the proceedings which had taken place on 25th July, 2000 even though he claims to have appeared in the Court on 26th July, 2004. In the circumstances, therefore, both the Courts below having arrived at the concurrent findings regarding failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the reason for absence in the Court on the date when the matter was disposed of ex parte, no fault can be found with the said findings, nor the same warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction as it cannot be said that the Courts below have exercised their discretion either arbitrarily or illegally, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Being so, the petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. _____ 4 -

Order - Status 8: SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8084 OF 2013 Shri Kiran Uttamrao Hole & ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shri Tukaram Genbhau Ambekar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Vasant Adsul, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th November, 2013. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition pertains to recording of mutation entry. It is now a settled position of law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish rights of the party and the same is recorded only for fiscal purposes. The parties are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated. A reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Another V/s. Daulat Singh reported in 1997(7) SCC 137. Sr.No30. Wp 8084.13 In the present case, the petitioner as well as respondents have filed civil suits and same are pending for adjudication. A mutation entry is always subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings. Suffice it is to observe that the Civil Court shall decide the rights of the respective parties independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the findings recorded by the revenue authorities in the proceedings for recording mutation entry. In the light of the above observation, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5974 of 2007 M/s.Awate constructions. .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.B.G. Tangsali for the petitioner. CORAM : S.B. MHASE AND D.G.KARNIK, JJ DATED : 17th August 2007. P.C.: ... . Heard. This petition is similar to the disposed of petitions. viz. writ petition nos.6086 of 2005 and 3126 of 2006. In the said petitions, this Court has directed :- "In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit this amount with the 2nd respondent who shall, forward the amount to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the 2nd respondent that the vehicle shall not, hereafter, be plied within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai. The 2nd respondent shall subject to compliance with the aforesaid conditions release the vehicle only for one journey within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to take the vehicle outside the municipal limits." In our opinion, this petition also can be disposed of by accepting the request of the petitioner for depositing an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, and on deposit of such amount, the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the respondent no.2 that the vehicle shall not be plied within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai. The respondent no.2 is directed to comply with this order and release the vehicle only for one journey within the municipal limits of the greater Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to take the vehicle outside the municipal limits. This order has been passed in respect of vehicle bearing no. MH-04-E-4186.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5973 of 2007 M/s.Awate constructions. .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.B.G. Tangsali for the petitioner. CORAM : S.B. MHASE AND D.G.KARNIK, JJ DATED : 17th August 2007. P.C.: ... . Heard. This petition is similar to the disposed of petitions. viz. writ petition nos.6086 of 2005 and 3126 of 2006. In the said petitions, this Court has directed :- "In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit this amount with the 2nd respondent who shall, forward the amount to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the 2nd respondent that the vehicle shall not, hereafter, be plied within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai. The 2nd respondent shall subject to compliance with the aforesaid conditions release the vehicle only for one journey within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to take the vehicle outside the municipal limits." In our opinion, this petition also can be disposed of by accepting the request of the petitioner for depositing an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, and on deposit of such amount, the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the respondent no.2 that the vehicle shall not be plied within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai. The respondent no.2 is directed to comply with this order and release the vehicle only for one journey within the municipal limits of the greater Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to take the vehicle outside the municipal limits. This order has been passed in respect of vehicle bearing no. MH-04-E-4186.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5309 OF 2021 Ranshul Chandrakant Patil. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5314 OF 2021 Mukesh Sukrya Bhandari. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5320 OF 2021 Prakash Vitthal Mahale … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5325 OF 2021 Arvind Dhanya Tadavi. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5333 OF 2021 Bacchibai Narayan Khadake. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5563 OF 2021 Vikas Vitthal Ghurup. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR Digitally signed by SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR Date: 2022.08.03 16:21:51 +0530 AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5572 OF 2021 Vijay Balasaheb Nanware. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5954 OF 2021 Santosh Rajaram Wankhede. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5959 OF 2021 Shrihari Rajlingam Guntuka. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5981 OF 2021 Steve Alias Lisbun John Miranda. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6026 OF 2021 Bhagwanji Dayaram Joshi. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6049 OF 2021 Vikas Madan Devkate. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6509 OF 2021 Kisan Barku Gangad. V/s. … Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6511 OF 2021 Ganesh Bhausaheb Pawar. V/s. … Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6600 OF 2021 Kailas Suresh Waghmare. V/s. … Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6610 OF 2021 Kisan Budha Nirgude. V/s. … Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. Through Jail. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent- State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 29 July 2022. P.C. : In these petitions, the Petitioners are seeking to be released on emergency (Covid-19) parole. The Petitioners have sought this relief in view of Rule 19(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 as amended. By Government Resolution dated 4 May 2022, the policy of being released on emergency (Covid-19) parole is discontinued and those who have been released earlier have been directed to return back to the respective prison. In light thereof, the relief sought for by the Petitioners cannot be granted. Writ petitions are rejected. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Chitra Vasant More Petitioner Vs. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Respondents Mandal and Ors. Mr. Mandar Limaye, for the petitioner. Mr. Dilip Bodke, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 21st, November 2008. P.C. . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent seeks an adjournment to file a reply. The reply shall be filed on or before 5th December, 2008. Matter be placed for final disposal on 12th December, 2008. Sd/- [ Dr. D.Y. ChANDRACHUD, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4197 OF 2008 Mrs.Chitra Vasant More : Petitioner V/s. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Mandar Limaye for the petitioner. Mr.Dilip Bodke for respondent nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2009. P.C . Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Bodke waives service for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Heard by consent. The petitioner teacher has challenged the judgement and order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Addl. School Tribunal, New Mumbai, in appeal no.48 of 2007. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against her dismissal from service. The petitioner was dismissed in pursuance of an inquiry in which it was found that she along with others was guilty of misconduct i.e. distribution of a letter containing serious grievances against the management and going on a relay hunger strike in front of the office of the Zilla Parishad. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal relied on two letters dated 8.6.2006 and 31.7.2006 in which the petitioner has explained the circumstances in which she along with others participated in the hunger strike. In fact, in relation to participation in the hunger strike, the petitioner denied their actual participation on the ground that on 15.5.2006 i.e. the day of the strike, she was due to get married and she was busy in the performance of the marriage. There is no dispute about the proposed marriage, but the Tribunal has observed on the basis of oral arguments of Mr.Modgi that the marriage was postponed. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner has admitted the participation in the strike in the above letters. The finding of the Tribunal in regard to circulation of the pamphlet containing defamatory matter is not clear. It may be noted that there is no admission in this regard by the petitioner at all since the petitioner has written in her letter that on that date, certain teachers who had been removed from service distributed letters. Obviously, the petitioner was not one of them because she had not been removed from service on that date. There is also no dispute that the petitioner's name does not appear as one of the signatories of the pamphlet. Mr.Mandar Limaye, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the School Tribunal is vitiated since it is held that it is not necessary to hold any inquiry. The learned counsel submitted that even if there are letters apparently containing an admission where there is a denial of actual participation by the delinquent, there must be a finding of fact and an inquiry cannot be dispensed with. He further pointed out that in the present case, the conduct of the teachers cannot be described as misconduct because they went on a hunger strike in the Zilla Parishad office and not in the school premises and, therefore, there was no cessation of work. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgement of this Court in Nandkumar Mahadeo Dengane & Ors. v. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Ors. (2008 (4) Bom.C.R. 319). Having perused the judgement in the aforesaid case, it is clear that this Court was deciding an identical view taken by the Tribunal arising out of the same incident. This Court held that the acts with which the teachers such as the petitioner were charged with do not constitute misconduct. This Court further held that there is a violation of rule 36 of the MEPS Rules. This Court, -: 4 :- therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal. Mr.Bodke, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3, submitted that it cannot be said that there is no misconduct since the petitioner could be said to be guilty of misconduct described by the residuary clauses which read as follows:- "(i) breach of the terms and conditions of service laid down by or under these rules; (ii) violation of the code of conduct; and (iii) any other act of similar nature." However, the learned counsel is not in a position to point out the basic definition from which similarity can be worked out. I find that the challenge is substantially covered by the judgement of this Court in Nandkumar's case (supra) and the petition is liable to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. Mr.Limaye points out that the petitioner has not been reinstated in service till now. He further pointed out that other teachers in whose favour this Court passed an order have also not been reinstated in service. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within a period of one month from today along with consequential benefits. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. S.A. BOBDE, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT Mr Sanjay S Patil Advocate for Petitioner. { Mentioned at 3.50 p.m. } Ms Kavita N Solunke - AGP for Respondent - State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 22nd February, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/02/2022 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mohd.Sayed Fakih, since deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shripat K.Tambde, since deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay S. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent for the State - Respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & S.M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2022. P.C. :- Mr.Pawar, learned AGP for the State seeks time to take instructions and to file affidavit in reply. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the land of the petitioners is the subject matter of the impugned award, the compensation is awarded in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3. Statement is accepted. Issue notice upon the respondent nos.1 to 3, returnable on 6 th April, 2022. Hamdast is permitted. In addition to the Court notice the petitioners are permitted to serve the respondent nos.1 to 3 by private service by all permissible modes of services in accordance with law. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent nos.4 and 5. The respondent nos.4 and 5 shall not release any payment of compensation in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3 till next date. Place the matter on board for admission on 6th April, 2022. (S.M. MODAK, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.) Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.02.24 12:13:36 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mohammud Sayed Fakih Since deceased Through LRs. … Petitioner Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde Since deceased Through LRs. … Respondent Mr. Sanjay S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondents/State. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 6, 2022 P.C. Await service. Stand over to 4 th May 2022. Interim order passed earlier to continue till then. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2022.04.08 15:20:58 +0530

Order - Status 10: 48-wp1201-22.doc vai VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.05.06 15:02:27 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2022 Abdul Mohd.Sy.Fakih, since deceased through his L.Rs. ...Petitioners V/s. Shripat K. Tambde, since deceased through his L.Rs. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Patil for the Petitioners. Mrs.M.S. Bane, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2022. P.C. :- Await service. Returnable date is extended to 12th July, Ad-interim order passed by this Court to continue till then. (M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 12th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/09/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 12th September, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 28/09/2022 In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2022.09.29 14:57:41 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih … Petitioner Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde & Ors. … Respondents ****** Mr. Sanjay Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Prithviraj Gole for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the State. ****** CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C. :- . The matter is mentioned in the morning. The matter as per the roster would be before the coordinate bench. The coordinate bench is not available. The petitioner seeks continuation of the interim order passed earlier. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is present and the learned AGP is also present. At the request of parties, place the matter on 11th October, 2022. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till then. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Azia Mahammud Sayed Fakih (Since deceased through his LRs) Vazir Begam Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih (Since deceased through her LRs) 1 Tahera Mahammud Yousuf Hendade and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde (Since deceased through his LRs) 1 Vasant Shripat Tambde and Ors. .. Respondents …... Mr.Sanjay Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Sandesh Patil i/b. Mr.Chintan Shaha, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent – State. …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 11 October 2022. RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2022.10.15 16:37:07 +0530 P.C. : The learned counsel for Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, where the Petitioners can make a reference to the concerned authority. 2 Learned counsel for the Petitioner accepts and states that the Petitioners will approach the concerned authority and prays that the ad–interim order granted in this Petition be continued for some time to enable the Petitioners to approach the concerned authority. Considering the above submissions, and the fact that ad–interim order is operating since February 2022, while we dispose of the Petition, we continue the position under ad–interim order dated 23 February 2022, for a period of four weeks. 3 The contentions of the parties are kept open and continuation of ad–interim order will not be construed as reflection on the merits of the rival contentions. 4 Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2004. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders. orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Nitin Pradhan for the Petitioner. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 16th June, 2005. P.C.: Issue notice to the Respondent returnable on 5th August 2005. The learned A.P.P. waives service for Respondent No.2. In addition to service through Court the Advocate for the Petitioner to serve private notice. Judge.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2004 Nasari Dairy Products Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. Smt.Shobhadevi ...Respondents Shinde & anr. Mr.Prakash Nail for the petitioner Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State None for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 31,2008 P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gadhinglaj in which process was issued. The process was issued only for two offences under section 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. In a petition filed by the petitioner, this court has interfered and directed that the process should be issued against the Respondents for other offences under the Companies Act and Indian Penal Code. By order dated 8th July 2002, the learned Magistrate passed an order of discharge by exercising power under sub section 2 of section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The order of discharge was passed as the Petitioner failed to appear and adduce evidence. A revision application preferred by the petitioner against the said order was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was diligently prosecuting the complaint and in fact the petitioner was in a position to adduce evidence. He submitted that if an opportunity is granted, the petitioner is in a position to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges. He, therefore, submitted that by setting aside the impugned order, the complaint be remanded. I have considered the submissions. The order dated 21st July 2000 passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the Petitioner was seeking adjournment. When the complaint appeared on board on 20th June 2002, neither the petitioner nor his Advocate were present. The learned Judge passed an order recording that if on the next date the petitioner failed to lead evidence before charge, necessary order will be passed on the complaint. On 8th July 2002, when the complaint came up before the court, the learned Magistrate noted that no evidence has been adduced by the petitioner. The learned Judge referred to his earlier order passed on an application at Exh.42 in which he had observed that the averments made in the complaint and verification recorded therein was not sufficient to frame the charges in absence of any further evidence adduced by the petitioner. As the evidence was not adduced by the petitioner, the learned Judge proceeded to pass an order of discharge by exercising power under sub section 2 of section 245 of the said Code. I find no reason to 2 - interfere with the said order as well as the order of the Sessions Court by which an order of discharge has been confirmed. The complaint was of the year 1996. After granting sufficient opportunities the petitioner could not adduce the evidence. Considering all the aforesaid factual aspects, now it will be unjust to exercise power under Article 227 of Constitution of India or under section 482 of the said Code to interfere at this stage and to permit the petitioner to adduce the evidence. No case is made out for interference. Hence, petition is rejected. JUDGE

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1538 OF 2004 Kishor @ Lala Chetahmal Lalwani ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mrs.Smita Rajendra Kadu for Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. OCTOBER 15, 2004. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. I find no reason to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the fact situation of the present case. While rejecting the application for furlough leave made by the Petitioner, the Authority has taken into account, recent recommendations made from appropriate quarters. The material which was gathered during the enquiry revealed that if Petitioner was to be released, he may be a threat to panch and witnesses of the criminal case, who had deposed against him. That reason qualifies the requirement of Rule 4(4) of the The Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959. It is not open for this Court to impose its views on the subjective satisfaction reached by the Authority on the basis of material gathered during the enquiry while considering the Application preferred by the Petitioner. There are other good reasons mentioned in the reply affidavit filed, which are supported by the recommendations received by the appropriate authority produced before me. To get over this position, learned Counsel contends that out of six grounds, most of the grounds were non-existing grounds. However, that statement does not commend to me. Indeed, the Petitioner may be right in contending that merely because his earlier application was rejected because of adverse report, the same cannot be the basis to reject his subsequent application, which ought to have been considered on its own merits. However, that is not the only reason on the basis of which the present Application has been rejected. For rejecting the present application, fresh report was called for, and the report received clearly spell out apprehension if the Petitioner was to be released. Taking overall view of the matter, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5825 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram,appearances,Court's Orders : Court's or Judges order or directions and Registrar Orders : ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Amit Borkar for the petitioner. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 10th August 2007. P.C:- . Notice returnable after four weeks. Hamdast allowed. (D.G.KARNIK, J) (S.B.MHASE, J)