All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar Registrar's orders. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Mohd. Shine with S. S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP No. 2129 of 2016. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Manish Rai for petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ **.** July 05, 2016. P.C. : Issue notice to respondents, returnable after four weeks i.e. 2/8/2016. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 – State. Till the next date i.e. 2/8/2016, we direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of the subject crime. However, it is clarified that there is no stay to the investigation. (PRAKASH D. NAIK *,* J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Mohd.Shine with S.S.Bijlani for Petitioner in WP No.2146 of 2016. Mr.G.K.Masand i/by Manish Rai for Petitioner in WP No.2129 of 2016. Mr.Kanishk Jayant with Mr.Harvinder Singh for Respondent no.2. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 2nd August 2016 PC :­ 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 appears. Stand over to 10 August 2016. Ad­interim relief granted earlier to continue till 10 August 2016. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents …... Mr. Mohd. Shine a/w. S.S. Bijlani, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P. No.2129 of 2016. Mr.G.K. Masand i/b. Mr.Manish Rai, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P.No.2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for Respondent - State in both the petitions. Mr. Kanishk K. Jayant, Advocate for Respondent Respondent no.2 in both the petitions. …... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2016. P.C. : Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Following issues arise for consideration: (a) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Maharashtra; (b) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab; (c) Whether FIR/complaint registered against accused persons attracts penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the SC & ST Act") 2 In the facts and reading compliant whether penal offence is attracted, learned counsel appearing for petitioners places reliance on following judgments: (a) Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. 1 (b) State of Mahrashtra Vs. Milind & Ors. 2 (c) Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. 3 (d) Ghanshyam Kala s/o. Jagat Ram Kala Vs. The State 4 (e) Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 5 (e) Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 6 1 (1990) 3 SCC 130 2 (2001) 1 SCC 4 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531 4 2009(1) Uttaranchal Decision 639 5 2003(3) Mh.L.J 225 6 (2010) 8 SCC 775 3 Learned counsel appearing for complainant prays for dismissal of these petitions. It was submitted that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab and in relation to the State of Maharashtra, the issue is required to be considered on a broader prospective. Learned counsel referred to Article 17 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned APP submits that investigation is likely to be completed within three to four weeks. 5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find that the issues raised by petitioners for consideration. 6 Rule. Rule returnable early. 7 In the meantime, further proceedings consequent to registration of FIR stands stayed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Mr. Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mohd. Shine i/b S.S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP/2129/2016. Mr.Manish Rai for petitioner in WP/2146/2016. Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Kaushik Jayant a/w. Ms. Antra Jayant, Mr. Nilesh Mandavkar, Mr. Rajye Jain i/b Kanishk Jayant for respondent No.2 in WP/2129/2016 and WP/2146/2016. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH OCTOBER 2019 P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned, in view of urgency. Taken on production board. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in both petitions. 3. The subject first information report bearing C.R. No. II-15/2016, dated 18-05-2016 on the complaint of the respondent No.2 (in both petitions) for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016, are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 in the subject crime and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2129 of 2016 are the original accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the subject crime. 4. Pending investigation of the subject crime, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and accordingly the complainantrespondent No.2 has submitted consent terms before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-Panvel in Hindu Marriage Petition No.297 of 2015. The copy of the consent terms presented before the Court. Clause (4) of the consent terms reads as under :- 4 The petitioner Husband has agreed to give his consent for quashing of FIR filed by him bearing No. II-15/2016 dated 18 th May 2016 u/s 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act, 1989 and section 7(1)(5) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. 1955 with CBD Police Station, Navi Mumbai against father of the Respondent i.e., the Gharasingh Chahal, Gurmit Kaur, Gurbax Singh, Hardeep Singh Anjan, Mehersingh Randhava, K.J.S. Bhatti, Gurinderjit Saini. The Petitioner-husband is agreed to give his consent and/or file an affidavit to that effect in Writ Petition bearing No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition bearing No. 2129 of 2016 filed in respect of said FIR bearing No.II-15/2016." 5. In view of the above understanding, the parties have approached this Court for quashing the subject crime. The respondent No.2 has filed a common affidavit dated 9 th October 2019 in both Writ Petitions, i.e., Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 and in paragraph 6 thereof, has given consent to the withdrawal of all the charges levelled in the subject crime. The respondent No.2 is personally present in Court and on specific query by this Court, confirmed that he has no objection to quash the subject FIR. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaints, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1 , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), respectively. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the petitioners for using the police and judicial machinery for settling their personal disputes. In view of this, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs in each petition. The total amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to "Tata Memorial Hospital", an institution that takes care of the patients suffering from cancer at advanced stage and/or terminally ill due to cancer. For the quashment to take effect, the petitioners shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petitions shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est. 8. Subject to above, the writ petitions stand disposed of. [ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] [ RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 4: Chitra Sonawane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2021 Vivian Felix Gonsalves …. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …. Respondents. … Mr.A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Kadam, AGP for State. Miss Savita Suryavanshi for respondent no.2. CORAM : K.K. TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 17th JULY, 2021. [Through Video Conferencing] P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated 24th May 2021 passed under the provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act ('the said Act' for short). … Learned AGP Mr.Ravi Kadam appearing on behalf of the State submits that alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner u/s 154 of the said Act. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the fact that in the present matter when this Court called upon the learned Advocate for the petitioner, as to how much amount he can pay, to which, he submitted that he require some time to take instructions from his client. On his request matter to appear on board on 20th July 2021. Hence, the following order is passed. a) Matter to appear on board on 20th July, 2021. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [K. K. TATED, J.]

Order - Status 6: 41 wp2924-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2021 Vivian Flexi Gonsalves ..... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.Amit Dubey i/b Mr.Ashok Saraogi for the Petitioner Mr.Ravi Kadam, A.G.P. for the State Ms.Savita Suryavanshi for the Respondent no.2 Mr.Anil D'souza for the Respondent nos.3 to 6 CORAM: K.K.TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : JULY 20, 2021 P.C. . Heard. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that his Arguing Counsel A.M.Saraogi is not available. Hence, he requires some time. The learned counsel for the Respondent no.3 to 6 submit that they have not received copy of Petition. He submits that Petitioner may be directed to provide copy of Petition to them. Hence, the following order is passed: TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2021.07.22 12:43:52 +0530 a. Petitioner is directed to serve copy of Petitioner on all the Respondents on or before 23.07.2021 and fle Affdavit of Service to that effect, failing which they have to pay cost to each and every Respondents. b. Matter to appear on board on 27.07.2021. (PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2021 .… .… Vivian Felix Gonsalves ] Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Deputy Registrar ] ] Cooperative Societies,Vasai & Ors. ] ] Respondents. Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Petitioner. Mr.R.P. Kadam, AGP for State. Ms Savit Suryavanshi for respondent no.2. Mr.Anil D'souza for respondent nos.3 to 6. CORAM : K.K. TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 27th JULY, 2021. [Through Video Conferencing] P.C. Heard learned Counsel for parties. At the request of learned Advocate for the petitioner, matter to appear on board on 6th August 2021. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [K. K. TATED, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2021 Vivian Felix Gonsalves ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vasai And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ DATE : 6th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 11/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2021 Vivian Felix Gonsalves ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vasai And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ DATE : 11th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/08/2021 . 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. 2924 OF 2021 Vivian Felix Gonsalves ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vasai And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ DATE : 12th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 18/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: 27.2924.21-wp.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924/2021 BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL signed by BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL Date: 2021.08.23 13:00:00 +0530 Digitally Vivian Flexi Gonsalves ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents None for the Petitioner Mr. R. P. Kadma, AGP for the State Mr. Ashish Suryavanshi I/b. Savita Suryavanshi for Respondent No.2. CORAM: K.K.TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2021 P.C. 1 None for the Petitioner. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 seeks some time. 2 It is to be noted that, in the present proceedings, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.05.2021 passed by Respondent No.1 under the provisions of section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Against the said order, revision is maintainable under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. 3 Place the matter on board on 31.08.2021. (PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 18: 31 wp2924-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2021 Vivian Flexi Gonsalves …. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….. Respondents None for the petitioner Mr.R.P.Kadam, A.G.P. for the State Ms.Sarita Suryavanshi for the respondent no.2 Mr.S.S.Redekar i/b Mr.Anil D'souza for the respondent nos.3 to 6 CORAM: K.K.TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2021 P.C. . None for the Petitioner. As no one appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Registry is directed to place the matter on board on 03.09.2021 for dismissal. (PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.) Mohite 1/1 Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2021.09.02 19:08:36 +0530

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2021 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2021.09.06 11:00:26 +0530 Vivian F. Gonsalves ] Petitioner. … … Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] Respondents. None for petitioner. Ms Savita Suryavanshi for Respdt.no.2. Mr.R. P. Kadam, AGP for State. CORAM : K.K. TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2021. P.C. 1 None for the petitioner. Ms Savita Suryavanshi, learned Advocate for respondent. The office note shows that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 18.8.21 and 31.8.2021 and today also. This Court by order dated 31.8.2021 directed Registry to keep the matter on board under caption 'for dismissal'. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [K. K. TATED, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5167 OF 2005 Om-Satnam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. ... The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society & Ors. : Respondents Mr.Bharat Joshi with Mr.Rajesh Singh for the petitioners. Mr.A.H.Palekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the respondent nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. August 25, 2005. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Palekar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4. Head by consent. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and, in my view, rightly is that the Divisional Joint Registrar took cognizance of the petitioners' application for stay, but has not passed any order on the said application. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar has not even assigned any reason for not passing any order. In the circumstances, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to decide the petitioners' application for stay on merits within a period of four weeks from the date the parties appear before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Joint REgistrar on 31.8.2005. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Status quo shall continue till the learned Divisional joint Registrar decides the petitioners' stay application. Thereafter, the order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar shall be in force. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J. 2

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.)