All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2005 Jaiprakash Kailashnath Upadhyay .. Petitioner. V/s. Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti through the Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Mr.C.K.Thomas for for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.S.Apte for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 13th November, 2006. P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to furnish a copy of the appointment order on record. S.O. to one week. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J)

Order - Status 13: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4688 OF 2005. Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court's or Judge's orders appearances,Court 's : orders or directions : and Registrar's orders. : N.P.Bubna for the petitioner. C.K.Thomas for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 19th Septemeber 2006. P.C.: . Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to file service report on record. He is directed to file it in office. Office to verify. (V.C.DAGA, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2005 Jaiprakash K. Upadhyay .... Petitioner Vs. Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti & Ors. .... Respondents Shri N.R. Bubna for the Petitioner. Shri C.K. Thomas for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sarvasri M.S. Lagu i/b R.S. Apte for the Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 30, 2006 P.C: Heard. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 7-5-2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation, without disclosing sufficient cause for the same. The Tribunal has arrived at the clear finding that the services of the petitioner were terminated from 30-4-2002 and has disbelieved the claim of the petitioner that he was rendering services in the school till 16-8-2003 and therefore the appeal filed in the year 2003 has been held to be barred by the law of limitation. In spite of repeated queries, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out cogent material on record which could reveal the said finding of the School Tribunal to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record. Considering the limited scope for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such orders, and where the order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal discloses the finding arrived at on the basis of analysis of the materials on record and which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order. The discretion exercised by the School Tribunal while rejecting the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal also cannot be said to be either perverse or having been exercised in arbitrary manner. Mere reference to the letter of 16-11-2002 by the Education Officer or the affidavit of one of the assistant teachers of the school claiming the petitioner having been in employment till 16-8-2003 cannot prove that the petitioner had rendered services till 16-8-2003, particularly in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not allowed to sign the muster roll after 30-4-2002. The affidavit of the teacher, apart from making a bald claim about continuing service rendered by the petitioner in the said school during the period from 13-6-2001 till 16-8-2003, nowhere discloses as to what subjects the petitioner was teaching in the school and what was the time-table allotted to him. So also, the letter of 16-11-2002 of the Education Officer merely brings to the notice of the management about some complaint made by the petitioner on 8-11-2002 about refusal on the part of the management to allow the complainant to sign the muster roll as well as failure on the part of the management to pay the salary to the teachers. It does not specifically refers to the grievance of the petitioner himself as such. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the finding arrived at by the School Tribunal and it does not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is rejected. (R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/1130wp4688.5

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2009 Smt.Vijaya Arvind Kurne. ..Petitioner. Versus Smt.Jyoti Pramod Nigudkar, The President / Secretary, Suvidya Prasarak Sangh. The Head Mistress, S.P.S.'s Suvidyalaya. The Education Inspector, Brihanmumbai (West Zone), Mumbai. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. Mr.S.V. Pitre, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate i/b. Ameya Tamhane, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms.Indrayani M. Koparkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr.C.I. Khemani, A.G.P., for the Respondent - State. ... ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATED : 23rd JULY, 2009. P.C. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1981 in the school run by respondent No.1. She did her B.A. In 1990 and B.Ed. In 1991 and thus entered in category "C" in 1991. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress w.e.f. 20.6.2007. Respondent No.1 challenged the promotion of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal. By order dated 30th June, 2009, the appeal filed by respondent No.1 came to be allowed. Respondent No.2 – Management was directed to promote respondent No.1 to the post of Head Mistress in place of the present petitioner from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. A few admitted facts are as under : Respondent No.1 is from open category. She was appointed as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 2.7.1984 in category "C" in one of the schools run by respondent No.2 – Management. Respondent No.1 did her B.Ed. in 1979 and acquired M.A. Degree in the year 1982. Hence, on her appointment, she was placed in category "C". Respondent No.1 thereafter came to be appointed to the post of Assistant Head Mistress in Suvidyalaya w.e.f. 1.8.2008. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.2 runs three schools namely (1) S.P.S's Suvidyalaya, Borivali (West), (2) S.P.S.'s Mangubhai Dattani Vidyalaya, Borivali (East), and (3) S.P.S.'s Manohar Hariram Chogale Vidyalaya, Borivali (West). There are three posts of Head Mistress and two posts of Assistant Head Mistress in the institutions run by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 challenged the grant of promotion to the petitioner as Head Mistress on the ground that there were three posts of Head Master in the schools run by respondent No.2. Out of the three posts, two posts were occupied by Open Category and one post was occupied by reserved category candidate i.e. the present petitioner. The case of respondent No.1 is that as there were three posts and the petitioner being from the reserved category was appointed to one of the said posts, the reservation amounted to 33% which was against the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1987 and the Rules framed thereunder. The contention of respondent No.1 is that as per Rule 9(10)(A) of the M.E.P.S. Act there could only be 24% reservation in any institution and as this reservation had been exceeded there were violation of Rule 9(10)(A) and hence it was prayed that the promotion of the petitioner be set-aside and respondent No.1 be appointed as Head Mistress as she was first in the seniority list. The case of the Management is that one Mr.Manohar Waradkar was promoted to the post of Head Master. He belonged to Scheduled Caste. When vacancy arose in the post of Mr.Manohar Waradkar, the present petitioner who also belongs to S.C. was promoted to the post as per roster. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at all respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the order of promotion of the petitioner on 20.6.2007, it ought to have been immediately challenged by respondent No.1. He submitted that as the cause of action arose on 20.6.2007, it ought to have been challenged by respondent No.1 immediately thereafter. However, it was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing appeal on 1st January, 2009. As the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress on 20.6.2007 and the said promotion came to be challenged by respondent No.1 only in January, 2009, it is submitted that there is an inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.1 in challenging the order. He submitted that there was no explanation for this inordinate delay. Hence on the ground of delay itself the complaint ought to have been dismissed. As far as the aspect of delay is concerned, from the seniority list as on 1.8.2006, which is not disputed by any of the parties, it is seen that Mr.S.K. Khillare was the senior most and respondent No.1 was at Sr.No.2, whereas the petitioner was at Sr.No.22. As respondent No.1 was not the senior most teacher and as Mr.Khillare was the senior most teacher when the petitioner came to be promoted on 20.6.2007, respondent No.1 could not have challenged the promotion of the petitioner. As at that point of time, there was no possibility of appointing respondent No.1 to the post of Head in the place of the petitioner as respondent No.1 was not the senior most teacher in category "C" at that time. At that stage only Mr.Khillare could have challenged promotion of the petitioner. Hence, on 20.6.2007 when the petitioner came to be promoted, it could not be said that respondent No.1 was an aggrieved party as she was not the senior most and hence there was no question of respondent No.1 being promoted as head. Thus, there was no question of respondent No.1 challenging the promotion of the petitioner at that stage and it is only when she became eligible she has filed an appeal. As stated earlier, the main contention of respondent No.1 is that by promoting the petitioner, the reservation exceeded 24% which is in violation of Rule 9(10) (A) and hence the petitioner could not have been appointed to the post of Head. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that admittedly respondent No.2 runs three schools and there are three posts of Head and two posts of Assistant Head in the three schools, hence, if the three posts of Head and two posts of Assistant Head are taken together then in that case Rule 9(10)(A) which provides for 24% reservation is not exceeded. As far as this aspect is concerned, this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the decision dated 15.2.2007 in Writ Petition No.4723 of 2005 held that the post of Head Master and Assistant Head Master are different posts and the same cannot be clubbed together for adjudication of 24% roster. This decision has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the dispute. In the case of R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. and ors. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 430 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "40. We are not concerned with the reasonableness or otherwise of the percentage of reservation. 21% of the posts have been reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (sic Caste) candidates by the State itself. It, thus, cannot exceed the quota. It is not disputed that in the event of any conflict between the percentage of reservation and the roster, the former shall prevail. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the roster to fill up the posts by reserved category candidates, after every four posts, in our considered opinion does not meet the constitutional requirements." 12.In view of the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to see the percentage of reservation for the post of Head under the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. Rule 9(10) deals with reservation of the post in the cadres of Head and Assistant Heads in private schools. As per this rule, Management shall reserve 24% of total number of posts of Heads and Assistant Heads for the members of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes. As per this rule, only 24% posts can be reserved in the cadre of Heads and Assistant Heads. Undisputedly there are only three posts of Head in the respondent institute, therefore, if one post is given to the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste then it would exceed the limit of 24% prescribed under the law. If one post out of three posts goes to reserved category candidate, then reservation would amount to 33% which is not permissible under law. 13.The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a circular dated 5th May, 2009 wherein it is stated that reservation of 24% is increased to 33%. On perusal of the said circular, it is seen that it is to take effect on 8.10.2008, whereas the promotion of the petitioner took place on 20.6.2007. In such case, the said circular would be of no help to the petitioner. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in the pleading before the lower Court, no such ground has been taken by the petitioner that reservation of 33% would apply and in such case as there are three posts the petitioner can be appointed in a reserved post. 14.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.1 as the petitioner was appointed in 1981 and respondent No.1 was appointed in 1984. According to him, the Tribunal erroneously held that respondent No.1 is senior to the petitioner on the basis of the date on which the petitioner and respondent No.1 became qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Vaijanath s/o. Tatyarao Shinde Vs. The Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad & Ors. reported in 2006(6) ALL MR 823. He submitted that the decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the said decision covers cases relating to Rule 3(1)(a), whereas the case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 3(1)(b). To my mind the fact that the appointment under Rule 3(1)(a) relates to appointment in primary school and the fact that the appointments under Rule 3(1)(b) relates to appointment in Secondary School would not make any difference because the same ratio would apply. If this ratio is taken into consideration, it is seen that the respondent was appointed in 1984 as Assistant Teacher at that time, she was fully qualified to hold the post as she had the qualification of B.Ed and M.A. on the date of her appointment, whereas the petitioner though appointed in 1981 at that time she did not hold B.A. or B.Ed. qualification. She acquired the qualification of B.A. in 1990 and B.Ed. in the year, 1991. In such case, her seniority can only be counted from the date that she became eligible for the post. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the seniority cannot be counted from the date of initial appointment, but, it would be counted from the date that a person acquires the requisite qualification. Moreover, it is seen that the seniority list in which respondent No.1 was shown at Sr.No.2 and petitioner at Sr.No.22 was not challenged by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was at Sr.No.22, the said seniority list was not challenged by him because the candidates at Sr.No.1 to 21 were from Open Category and the petitioner who is at Sr.No.22 was the first candidate in S.C. Category and the petitioner was eligible for promotion as the petitioner was from SC category. 16.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vinayak Krishnaji Joshi (dead) by L.Rs. Nalini wd/0. Vinayak Joshi and others. Vs. Akola Education Society and others reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 68 wherein while considering the provisions of the said Act and the Government Resolutions dated 17.9.1980 and 29.3.1997, it was held that where the education – society is running two schools, one at Akola and the other at Murtizapur, having two posts of Head masters, the vacancies occurring in these two posts will be required to be filled in as per roster point in use at the time of occurrence of such vacancy and by rotation. Thus, the post of Head Master in either school may be reserved as per the roster point when vacancy arises, the cut-off date being 3.6.1977. It was further observed that the Apex Court in Prabhash Chan Jain vs. State of Haryana and others, 1996(8) SCC 105 , had rejected the contention that whenever there are two posts, same cannot be filled by applying the reservation policy and had held that it is possible to implement the roster even in such circumstances. Reliance was placed on para 8 of the said decision. While arriving at the said finding, and more particularly to the observation by the Apex Court in the said para to the effect that "However, while filling the posts, it is the vacancies which are to be taken into consideration and these vacancies have to be filled in, according to roster points". However, it is seen that this issue has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court and the decision of the learned Single Judge in Vinayak Joshi has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New English High School Association, Nagpur and another Vs. Baldev s/o. Fakira Ade and another reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 882 . After considering the decision, the Full Bench observed that "in Prabhash Chan Jain's case (supra) the Apex Court had not dealt with the issue about the applicability of roster on consideration of the percentage of reservation.". Thereafter the Full Bench held that "26. If out of two posts, one post is reserved by applying the roster, it would obviously exceed 24%. Besides, the reservation is not 24% in favour of any one particular category. The maximum reservation is in favour of the Scheduled Castes which is to the extent of 13%, whereas the minimum is 4% in case of the Denotified and the Nomadic Tribes. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, if the reservation in the categories of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes is considered as one unit, it would consist of 4% i.e. 8 out of 100. If there are only two posts, and one of them is specified for reservation in favour of the Denotified Tribes or the Nomadic Tribes, who are entitled for reservation to the extent of only 8 out of 100, it would virtually amount to granting reservation by 42% in excess of the statutory entitlement in favour of the said category, which is not permissible and it would be in excess of the reservation under the statutory provision. Similar is the case in relation to the Scheduled Castes which is entitled for 13% reservation. In other words, 26 out of 100 and even reservation of one post would be in excess of total reservation of 24%. Undoubtedly, the Constitution mandates implementation of reservation policy. However, at the same time, it assures opportunities to all the open class category candidates. The implementation of the reservation policy should not lead to absurd result. The application of reservation percentage has to be with reference to the number of posts. It is always to be remembered that the reservation percentage is to be applied and the 50 point roster is to be followed taking into consideration the total number of posts in a cadre and at the same time care has to be taken that other category candidates are not prejudiced in the sense that the statutorily recognized reservation percentage does not exceed while implementing the reservation policy. Undisputedly, the relevant rule requires 24% of reservation out of which 13% for the S.C., 7% for the S.T. and 4% for the D.T./N.T. Considering the 24% reservation, if one applies the 50 point roster, it would result in reservation in excess of the statutorily specified percentage. In a cadre comprising of three posts with 24% reservation rule, if one applies the 50 point roster, then the reservation even in respect of one post would exceed 24% reservation. One-third cannot be equated to 24%. It is settled law that the reservation cannot be allowed to exceed the percentage prescribed for reservation as it would result in injustice to the candidates falling outside the reservation category. Considering the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Somsing's case that 24% reservation can be applicable only in cases where there are minimum of four posts in a cadre and not otherwise." 18.In view of the above facts and in view of this decision, as the cadre consists of three posts of Head Master and total percentage of reservation at that time was only 24%, in such case, there could not have been any reservation and only in case if there were four posts then one post could have been filled in by a candidate from reserved category. Such is not the case in the present matter. 19.In view of the above facts , the decision of the School Tribunal, Mumbai dated 30.6.2009 is just, legal and proper. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner made oral request for stay of this order. Request is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 1 Writ Petition No.5259 Of 2013. Niles Dinubhai Patel & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus Jamnadas Khimji Jethwa & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Vaibhav Mehta i/by V. Mehta & Associates, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Haresh Lulia, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM => S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE => 22nd JULY, 2013. P.C. :- The petitioners are assailing the order granting interim compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per month. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the courts below have not considered all the relevant factors while arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners (original defendants) have to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation at a time of granting stay to the decree of the trial court. (3) The learned counsel submits that there are various factors which are required to considered while passing an order about compensation. The learned counsel relied on following reported cases :- (i) Chandrakant Dhanu & Ors., Versus Sharmila Inder Kumar Kapur & Ors., reported in 2009(1) BOM.C.R. 698. (ii) Marjorie Passanah & Ors., Versus Mumtaz Iqbal Shaikh, reported in 2008(6) BOM.C.R. 72. (4) The learned counsel submits that the building is constructed in the year 1971. Lift facility is not available to the said building. Averment of the present petitioners that it will not possible for them to pay said amount, has not been considered. It is also not considered that the respondent is not required to spend for the building as the tenants have formed an Association and they are taking care of the management and expenses. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, leave & license agreement relied upon is not in respect of the similarly situated property. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the fact the adjacent premises has been taken up for redevelopment and the occupiers therein are relocated in another locality and for that Rs.40/- per sq.fts. is being paid by the developer. Said agreement did not have any nexus with the present matter and would be in respect of the altogether different property and in altogether different situation. (5) The learned counsel for the respondent supports the order. The respondent has produced on record leave and licence agreement, which is in respect of the property situated in the same locality. It shows that, rent was @ Rs.40/- per sq.fts. The petitioners have not produced on record any agreement showing that similar property is given at lesser rate. (6) No doubt, while considering an application for stay and imposing conditions about the payment of the amount more than the contractual one, the court is required to consider various facets of the matter and is not required to be guided only by other agreement. However, the court is required to have some material on record to arrive at just conclusion. Agreement produced on record is registered agreement. Even if I consider case of the petitioners that building is constructed in the year 1971 to which, lift facility is not available, so also tenants are expending the amount; still the courts have awarded the amount as per the leave & licence agreement produced on the record, which is of the year 2010. The petitioners claims to be in possession of 900 Sq.Fts. of the area where-as respondents contend that same is more. The court has directed payment @ Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation amount, which would be approximately @ Rs.15/- per sq.fts. Order is passed on 26th April, 2013. The property is situated in the Goregaon, Mumbai locality. (7) Considering the area occupied by the petitioners, the court has directed the payment @ Rs.15,000/- per month towards the compensation. Considering the above, discretion exercised by the court cannot be said to be unreasonable one. Discretion has been exercised in plausible manner. In the light of above, the impugned order does not suffer from an error on the face of record, warranting interference of this court. Therefore, in the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. (8) The petitioners shall pay arrears of compensation as directed by the courts below by 31st December, 2013 and shall thereafter pay the amount regularly on or before 10th day of each calender month. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.17244 OF 2014 Chintaman R Abhyankar and anr. : Petitioners. Versus Veda Co­op. Housing Society Ltd. : Respondent. Mr. Y K Tiwari i/by Mr. Rajesh M Yadav for the Petitioners. Mr. N G Gupta i/by Mr. C M Lokesh for the Respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 21st July 2014. P.C. 1 There is a concurrent finding recorded against the Petitioners and in favour of the RespondentSociety as regards the Petitioners entitlement to the stilt parking place purportedly sold to them by the builder by virtue of the agreement that was entered into between the Petitioners and the builder. The Cooperative Court rejected the application for interim reliefs filed by the Petitioners. The Cooperative Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Cooperative Court. 2 The Apex court in the judgment reported in 2010 CTJ 98 (SC) in the matter of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. has held that under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act a builder is not entitled to sell the parking place in the stilt portion. It appears that in the instant case, the Society has already regulated the parking and has allotted the Petitioners a parking place in the property of the Society. The learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to contend that the judgment of the Apex court cannot have retrospective effect so as to affect the rights of the parties which have been created anterior in point of time. The judgment of the Apex Court lays down a proposition of law in the context of the obligations of a developer/promoter under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, and therefore there is no question of any retrospective or prospective application. Both the Courts below have therefore rightly relied upon the said judgment. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 ................... Sundari Somnath Salian .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents .................... Mr. Sunil Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. S.H.Kankal, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for Respondent No.5. CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2022. P.C. : Heard Mr.Karandikar, learned Advocate for Petitioner. By Order dated 25.05.2008, Tahasildar granted access of 16 sq.mtr. for road to the Petitioner with one pre-condition that Petitioner shall keep the said area open and not construct any compound on the same seeking exclusivity. It is submitted that Respondent No.5 society being aggrieved, challenged the above condition before the Collector. By Order dated 19.09.2008, Collector confirmed the Order of Tahasildar rejecting the said challenge. By order dated 14.10.2009, Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision. In second revision before the State, specifically pertaining to the said condition which emanated from the order of the Tahasildar, the State passed order cancelling the original allotment and grant of 16 sq.mtr. area for road by Tahasildar to the Petitioner. Prima-facie it is seen that the subject matter in appellate proceedings and revision proceedings was limited to the extent of challenge to the condition only i.e. restricting the constructions of compound by Petitioner. In that view of the matter cancelling the original allotment of the subject land to the Petitioner was never in dispute or the subject matter of challenge in Appeal proceedings or in the subsequent revision proceedings. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondents. In addition to service of notice through Court, Petitioner shall serve Respondents by any permissible mode of service and file affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof before the returnable date. Mr. Kankal waives notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Petitioner shall serve a copy of the order on Respondent No.5. In the meanwhile, impugned order dated 31.10.2014 shall stand stayed. Reply to be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within one week thereafter. Stand over to 11th January, 2023. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 11th January, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 15/02/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 15th February, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 21/02/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: 1 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Sunil G. Karandikar for petitioner. Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare i/b. Archana S. Shelar for Respondent No.5. Mr. C. D. Mali, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent Nos.1 to 4. __________ __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 10 MARCH 2023 PC : The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 22/04/2014 passed by the Secretary and Special Executive Officer (Appeals) in the Revision Application S-30/2710/P.K.139/G-4 P.K.524(01)/2012/AVPU, as well as, the order dated 31/10/2014 rejecting the review of that particular order. The petitioner had requested for a road for accessing her plot at City Survey No.7754. The Tahsildar, Ambernath vide order dated 25/03/2008 directed that the plot admeasuring 16 Sq.mtr. from the plot No.81 owned by the respondent No.5 Society be allotted to the petitioner for a road accessing to her plot after depositing certain amount. That order was challenged by the respondent No.5 Society before the Collector, Thane. The said authority vide order dated 19/09/2008 rejected the objection raised by the society and upheld the order passed by the Tahsildar. However, vide Clause 3 of the said order dated 19/09/2008 it is clarified that the said portion could be used by the petitioner only for accessing her plot as a road to her plot. She was directed not to erect any compound around that particular portion. This particular clause of the Collector's order was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. That appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14/10/2009 and the order passed by the Collector was confirmed. In this particular appeal before the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner had challenged only the restriction on putting up a compound around that portion. There was, of course, no challenge by the petitioner for grant of that particular portion for her use. The petitioner thereafter filed the Revision U/s.257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 (for short 'M.L.R.Code') 3 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 before the Government of Maharashtra. That Revision application was rejected vide order dated 22/04/2014. While rejecting that revision application, the Secretary and Special Executive Officer (Appeals) for Government of Maharashtra also set aside the orders dated 25/03/2008 passed by the Tahsildar, Ambernath, the order dated 19/09/2008 passed by the Collector, Thane and the order dated 14/10/2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. The petitioner then preferred a review application of that order before the same authority. That review was also dismissed. The petitioner in these circumstances has approached this court challenging the order passed by the Government of Maharashtra U/s.257 of the M.L.R. Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government exceeded the scope of revision application preferred by the petitioner. The Government could only have taken into consideration the objection raised by the petitioner and the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was not open for the 4 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 Government to have considered the legality or validity of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Ambernath, the Collector, Thane and the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. Therefore, prejudice is caused to the petitioner because she was not given notice that all these three orders would be set aside by the impugned order. He further submitted that the Revisional Authority had taken into consideration Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code, but the petitioner was not heard and in consonance of the principles of natural justice, she at least deserved hearing before any adverse order was passed in her own revision application. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 submitted that the said respondent had filed their written submissions before the revisional authority, therefore, the petitioner was very much aware of the stand taken by the society. Therefore, the petitioner was not taken by surprise when the order was passed by the revisional authority. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 relied on the Judgment passed by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pandurang Chandrabhan Bauche and another Vs. Jalindhar Sarandhar Tupe & Ors. 1 to contend that the powers U/s.143 of the M.L.R. Code could be used only in respect of an agricultural land and not for the lands which are situated within the city limits. I have considered these submissions and I have perused the impugned orders passed by the revisional authority. The revisional authority has referred to Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code and has observed that the Tahsildar does not have power to pass any order in respect of a road leading to a plot which was not an agricultural land. To that extent, I do not find any infirmity in that order. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to make her submissions. Therefore, only to that extent and in the interest of justice, the petitioner deserves some hearing before any adverse order was passed by the revisional authority in the petitioner's own revision application. In such a case, the petitioner could have come up with other factual aspects of the matter and some solution could have been found between the parties. Some workable consequential relief could have been considered. The Judgment relied on by learned counsel for the 1 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 467 Respondent No.5 also supports the reasoning given by the revisional authority. Therefore, legally, I do not see that the revisional authority had committed any error. The only difficulty is that the petitioner was not heard when an adverse order was passed in her own revision application. She was not put to notice that such order was contemplated. Therefore, only because of that, I am inclined to remand back this revision proceeding before the revisional authority. Except for the power of the Tahsildar U/s.143 of the M.L.R. Code referred to herein above, the other contentions of the petitioner, as well as, of the respondent No.5 are left open. It is also necessary to take care of the consequences of cancellation of the order passed by the Tahsildar which can be decided by the revisional authority and for that purpose it is also necessary to remand back the revision application to the revisional authority. Hence, the following order: O R D E R i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The Revision Application filed by the petitioner is remanded back to the Revisional Authority. iii) It is made clear that, all other contentions of both the parties, except with reference to Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code, are left open. iv) The Revision Application shall be decided within a period of three months from today. v) The Writ petition is disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ••• Petitioner Versus District Collect, Pune & Ors. ••• Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & MADHAV J. JAMDAR,JJ. DATED : JUNE 8, 2022 P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is armed with a decree of civil Court. The suit for partition and separate possession was filed and the suit is decreed. The petitioner is awarded 1/5th share. The petitioner is not concerned with the loan availed by the present respondent No.6. The property in respect of which the decree is passed in favour of the petitioner is sought to be attached under the impugned order passed under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Notice to respondents returnable on 6 th July 2022. The learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Till next date, the respondent shall not take further coercive steps regarding the share of the petitioner in CTS No.672 i.e. the suit property of Special Civil Suit No. 1727 of 1997 and decree dated $2^{nd}$ May 2008. (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) Gaikwad RD

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ....PETITIONER V/S District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 6th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 25/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ....PETITIONER V/S District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 6th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 25/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale V/s.PetitionerDistrict Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors.Respondent. .... Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w. Sagar Kukreja for petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP a/w. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for respondent-State. .... Mr. Hemnat Ghadigaonkar for respondent nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. DATED : 23 rd FEBRUARY 2023 P.C.: Petition be listed on $15^{th}$ March, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 10: Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors. Respondent. Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w. Sagar Kukreja for petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP a/w. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for respondent-State. .... Mr. Hemnat Ghadigaonkar for respondent nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. DATED : 23 rd FEBRUARY 2023 P.C.: Petition be listed on $15^{th}$ March, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 11: Amol 1/5 suo moto IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3053 OF 1999 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. Shri. L. P. Netare and 8 Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2010 IN LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.144 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. Shri. L. P. Netare and 8 Ors. Respondents WITH LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3061 OF 1997 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. A. V. Bonde & Others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2010 IN LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. A. V. Bonde & Others Respondents AND Amol 2/5 suo moto WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1301 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 4655 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 Miss Rekha Premchand Safari & Anr. Petitioners V/s. Upnibandha Sahakari Sanstha & Anr Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors. Respondent. AND LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4647 OF 2011 Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha Appellant V/s. Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2017 Shri Sunil Shankar More & Ors. Petitioners V/s. Amol 3/5 suo moto The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12373 OF 2019 Shri. Arvind Kashinath Kore Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondent. WITH LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 316 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4647 OF 2011 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Appellant V/s. Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha Respondent. AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19542 OF 2022 In FIRST APPEAL 78 OF 2014 Thane Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner,Thane ....PETITIONER V/S Dr. Dilip Mansukhlal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 246 of 2014 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 of 2014 Shri. Dilip Mansukhlals Shah And Ors. ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Chandrakant Kantilal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT 4/5 suo moto WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1132 of 2019 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 of 2014 .... Shri. Sebastian J. Sequeiraand Ors. ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Dilip Mahasukhlal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT AND LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6216 OF 2011 .... Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Appellant V/s. Petroleum Employees Union & 24 Ors. Respondents. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. (In Chamber) DATED : 2 nd March 2023 P.C.: Suo moto called for Speaking to the Minutes of orders dated 23 rd February 2023. 2 In the cause title of orders dated 23 rd February 2023 the words "ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION" be substituted with "CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION" . Amol Amol 5/5 suo moto 3 Rest of the orders remain unaltered. 4 Original orders to be corrected accordingly. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17606 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ….Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune and Ors. …Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w Mr. Sagar Kursija for Petitioner. Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar for Respondent No.3. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State. CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 15 th MARCH 2023 P.C. : At the outset Mr. Ghadigaonkar appearing for Respondent No.3 submitted that Rule 107 (19) of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 provides for an alternative remedy in the sense if any objection is to be made by any party to the attachment to any property, the party may apply to the Recovery Officer who in this case is Respondent No.4 and Recovery Officer shall investigate the claim or objection and dispose it on merits. Mr. Badgujar for petitioner states that petitioner will file objection before Respondent No.4 within one week to the order of attachment. Mr. Ghadigaonkar states that the Recovery Officer will pass appropriate order within four weeks of receiving the objections and if petitioner requests for a personal hearing, a personal hearing can also be granted. In view of the statement made by Mr. Badgujar and Mr.Ghadigaonkar as above, we dispose the petition. We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter. Petition disposed. Mr. Ghadigaonkar states until the objections are decided, it is quite obvious Respondent No.4 will not take any further coercive steps. Consequently, all Interim Applications also stand disposed. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent None For Petitioner CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J DATE : 28th August, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 11/09/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- None for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : The respondent's counsel informs the Court that the petitioner has filed this writ petition to avoid the execution proceedings, but has not been prosecuting it. According to him, on the last occasion, too, none represented the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has, so far, not served the case papers on him. Post the matter on 20th September 2019 under the caption for "dismissal". [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena vs. Petitioner. Ms. Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 18th September, 2019 PC : Petitioner's counsel seeks time. Post the matter on 25.9.2019. ( DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : Shri Brijesh Shukla waives notice and informs the Court that he is appearing for the respondents. The petitioner's counsel assures the Court that she will serve the case papers on the respondents' counsel forthwith. Post the matter on 10th October 2019. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.09.26 17:15:04 +0530

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gauraqv Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- Mr.Samji Joseph i/b. Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla a/w Ms.Devika Mehra for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 10th OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court. Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.10.11 21:04:14 +0530 [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …..Petitioner. Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. Siraj Khan i/by M. B. Prajapati for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla a/w Devika Mehra for the Respondents. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2019. P.C.:- It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is in personal difficulty and is unable to attend the Court today. 2 At his request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, stand over to 20th December, 2019. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Ramji Kotali For Petitioner Adv.Brijesh Shukla Res 1 For Respondent CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 20th December, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 07/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: 54-wp-14372-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ••• Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ••• Respondents Mr.Sudhir V. Sadavarte i/b. Manisha Prajapati for Petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav R. Gargade for Respondent No.1. Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 7 th February 2020. P.C. : 1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10 th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11 th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10 th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief. [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 21: TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2023.03.13 11:02:46 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. … Respondents ***** None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No.1. Mrs. V. s. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent (State). ***** CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J. DATED : 8 MARCH, 2023 P.C.: None present for the Petitioner. Heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1, stand over to 12 April 2023. (S.G. DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr. S. V. Sadavarte i/by Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE J DATE : 12th April, 2023 P.C. : None present for the petitioner/s, stand over to 14/06/2023. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ...PETITIONER V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Ors ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Rushikesh Patil i/b Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 14th JUNE, 2023 P.C. : Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) KSG 1/1

Order - Status 28: WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. … Respondents ------- Mr.Saurabh M. Railkar h/f Mr.S.V.Sadavarte i/by Ms.Manisha B. Prajapati, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28 JUNE, 2023. P.C. : On 14th June, 2023, the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Today this court is informed that Mr.Sadavarte has filed a leave note. On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the Petitioner was to take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. Let instructions with respect to the payment plan be taken by the next date. List on 19th July, 2023. It is made clear that if instructions are not obtained by the next date, this court will proceed to pass appropriate orders. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION STAMP NO. 18038 OF 2023 In Writ Petition 14372 OF 2018 Umesh Chandra Tiwari ....PETITIONER V/S Gaurav Saxena ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr Brijesh Shukla Advocate for Respondent No. 1. [ MENTIONED AT 5.15 P.M. ] CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA J DATE : 19th July, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 21/08/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.01.11 16:09:58 Digitally +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14387 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Umesh C. Tiwari ...Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Gaurav Saxena ...Petitioner V/s. Umesh C. Tiwari & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Ms.Siddhi Mahambre and Mr.Harshil Gandhi for the Applicant. Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P. Pujari, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 9 TH JANUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Interim Application is filed by the Original lessor. This Interim Application seeks withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the lessee (Petitioner) pursuant to vai the directions given by this Court on 10 October 2019. For ease of reference, the order dated 10 October 2019 is reproduced herein below :- "1. The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." According to the Respondent (lessor) as per the impugned order, the amount payable by the lessee till the date of handing over possession i.e. 25 May 2019, would be Rs.5,23,600/-. Mr.Shukla, advocate appearing for the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) submits that however on 10 October 2019, as the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was admitted by the Petitioner, the Writ Petition was admitted. Mr.Shukla further submits that in such a situation, if the amount less than 50% is deposited in this Court, the Respondent / lessor should be allowed to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that suffice will be the purpose if the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) is allowed to withdraw the said sum of Rs.2,25,000/ deposited in this Court along with accrued interest thereon. Before withdrawal of the said amount, the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) should file an undertaking before this Court within a period of one week from today that in case after hearing the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is answered against the Applicant Umesh Chandra Tiwari), the Applicant will comply with the directions given by this Court. The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Both the parties agree that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, since small issue is involved in this matter. 3/4 Place the Writ Petition on board for hearing and final disposal on 8 February 2024, at 2:30 p.m. The parties agree to file a compilation of documents, short synopsis along with their preposition of law and authorities relied upon by them before the next date of hearing. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors … Respondents Mr. Saurabh R h/f Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Adv. Bijesh Shukla a/w Mr. Harshil Gandhi & Ms. Siddhi Mahambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. P. P. Pujari – AGP for Respondent-State Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J . DATED : 8 FEBRUARY 2024 P.C.: This Writ Petition is filed by licensee challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11 April 2017 and as confirmed by Judgment and Order dated 19 June 2018. Mr. Shukla appearing for the Respondent No.1 submits that the possession of the suit premises has been already received by them. He submits that the only dispute is now regarding the payment of compensation to be made by the petitioner. He further points out to Order dated 14 June 2023 passed by this Court. On 14 June, 2023 there was a request made by the advocate appearing for the Petitioner seeking time so that he will furnish a "Payment Plan" with regard to the outstanding payment to be made to Respondent / Landlord. Mr. Shukla submits that from 14 June 2023 till today, the said so called payment plan has not been furnished by the Petitioner. Mr. Saurabh appearing for the Petitioner seeks a short accommodation on the ground that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner due to personal reasons is not present in this Court. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 13 February 2024. To be listed "High On Board". (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.02.17 11:50:13 +0530 Writ Petition NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ..Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Adv.Siddhi Mahambre for Respondent No.1. Ms.Kajle, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 13 TH FEBRUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Writ Petition is filed as regards quantum of damages payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents, since the possession of the suit premises has already been hand over. Mr.Shukla appearing for Respondent No.1 / Owner submits that as per his calculation the amount as of today payable would be Rs.2,98,600/-. vai Mr.Sadavarte appearing for the Petitioner disputes the said figure payable. Mr.Sadavarte submits that the total outstanding amount is Rs.4,86,000/-. However, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was deposited in this Court and by an order of this Court, Respondent No.1 has already withdrawn the said amount. Therefore, the amount now payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 according to him would be Rs.2,61,200/-. Be that as it may, in the present Writ Petition on 10 October 2019 an order was passed. The said order dated 10 October 2019 reads as under :- "The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." Thereafter on 7 February 2020, this Court recorded that a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- had been deposited by the Petitioner with the Registrar of this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition was "Admitted" and ad-interim relief granted on 10 October 2019 was confirmed. The said order dated 7 February 2020 reads as under :- "1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief." Mr.Sadavarte submits that thereafter the matter came up before this Court on 14 June 2023 when the colleague of Mr.Sadavarte sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. He submitted that on 14 June 2023, Vakalatnama to appear on behalf of the Petitioner was not there. Therefore, the said statement was made on behalf of the Petitioner. On 14 June 2023, this Court granted two weeks time to Mr.Sadavarte to file the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. So also it was recorded that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner to take instructions about payment plan as regards outstanding payment to be made. The said order dated 14 June 2023 reads as under :- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Mr.Sadavarte submits that the Petitioner had challenged the quantum of amount payable as the rent to Respondent No.1 / Landlord and whatsoever was admitted amount by the Petitioner was already deposited as per the directions of the Court on 10 October 2019, and the said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the order dated 9 January 2024 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.14387 of Mr.Sadavarte submits that since he could not appear on 14 June 2023, his colleague had appeared in the matter only for seeking two weeks time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner, no statement could be made as regards payment plan towards the outstanding amount, as according to him as of that date, there was no outstanding amount payable as a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- admitted by them was already deposited. Thereafter the matter appeared on 28 June 2023, although Mr.Sadavarte had personal difficulty and he had filed the leave note, therefore, his colleague Mr. Railkar appeared on his behalf and sought time. According to Mr.Sadavarte, again on the said date, it was recorded that the Petitioner would be filing payment plan towards the outstanding amount. This Writ Petition involves only the dispute as to the quantum payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 / Landlord. The Petitioner had admitted that only a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is payable by Respondent No.1, however, Respondent No.1 has disputed this figure. The Petitioner has already deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in this 5/6 Court. The said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1. The Petition is already admitted by an order of this Court on 7 February 2020. The Writ Petition to come up on board for hearing and final disposal as per its turn. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 30th August, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 04/10/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 4th October, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte for Petitioner Smt. Madhubala Kajale 'B' Panel for Respondent-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 13th December, 2024 P.C. : Stand Over to 16/12/2024. List the matter under the caption of For Circulation. Interim relief,if any,to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 44: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ….Petitioner : Versus : Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ….Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3/State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 16 DECEMBER 2024. _____________ _____________ P.C. : None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to execute the order passed by the Competent Authority. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.12.17 08:54:47 +0530