All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 268 OF 2018 Dinkar Shankar Borhade ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT. & SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 14th March, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/04/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3736 OF 2021 M/s.Sovereign Tech } Engineering Services Private } Limited and Anr. } Petitioner versus Maharashtra Industrial } Development Corporation } and Ors. } Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani-Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.E.A.Sasi for the petitioner. Mr.B.V.Samant-AGP for respondent nos. 4 to 8 (State). Mr.Jitendra jagtap for respondent no.9. CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- AUGUST 5, 2021 PC :- 1. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 2nd September 2021. Mr.Samant, learned AGP waives notice for respondent nos. 4 to 8 and Mr.Jagtap, learned advocate waives notice for respondent no.9. 2. Reply affidavit may be filed by the respondents within 3 (three) weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed by 1 (one) week thereafter. SALUNKE J V Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2021.08.06 10:48:04 +0530 (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3736 OF 2021 M/s. Sovereign Tech Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Meghna Khatri i/by Mr. E. A. Sasi for petitioners. Ms. Tanvi Doshi i/by Little & Co. for respondent nos.1 to 3 (MIDC). Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent nos.4 to 8-State. Mr. Jitendra P. Jagtap for respondent no.9. Mr. R. V. Govilkar a/w Mr. Anil D. Yadav for respondent nos.10 & 11. C0RAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 PC : Registry to verify and place the writ petition before the appropriate Bench. (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2021.09.09 19:58:31 +0530

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1664 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashutosh Kulkarni h/f.Shri A.A.Kumbhakoni for the petitioners. Shri. Prathamesh Bhargude for the Respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. : The Sole petitioner has expired. Her heirs were permitted to be brought on record but that amendment is not carried out till date. The amendment was permitted for all on 18.8.2005, but, the same has not been carried out till date. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assures the court that the Amendment would be carried out within a period of one week from today. If the same is carried out, the office to proceed and place the petition for hearing. If the same is not carried out, the petition to stand dismissed for want of prosecution and thereupon all interim orders stand vacated without any reference to the court. No request for extension will be granted. *********

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.14919 OF 2014 Miss. Shamal Shamsunder Kharat and 6 Ors. … Petitioners Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. …Respondents …. Mr. Chandrashekhar B. Kher i/b. Ms. Shamika Ranade for the Petitioners. …. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE & M.S. SONAK,JJ. (VACATION COURT) DATED : 31 MAY 2014 P.C. : . Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 are students of the First Year of Revised General Nursing Midwifery. The Petitioners are students of Petitioner No.7 Institute. The Institute is running a Midwifery Course of 3½ years as per the Essentiality Certificate given by Joint Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Medical Education and Drug Department vide order dated 10 September 2011. Respondent No.2 has issued provisional permission to start the Nursing Course and accordingly, Petitioner No.7 Institute has been conducting the Course. For the academic year 2012 2013, Petitioner No.7 Institute applied for a permission to Respondent No.2 and has paid requisite fees for the same. It is the case of the Petitioners that inspite of several reminders, Respondent No.3, who is required to issue a suitability certificate on the basis of an inspection of the Institute, has not proceeded to conduct inspection. The Petitioners, in the premises, have also preferred a Civil Application, being Civil Application No.2478 of 2013, which is pending before this Court and posted for hearing on 10 June 2014. Petitioner No.7 – Institute has enrolled in all 20 eligible students, including Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 for the academic year 20132014. These students have completed the first year of the Course. Petitioner No.7 – Institute has also paid the requisite fees towards examination of these 20 students. The fees have been duly accepted by Respondent No.2. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that inspite of the fact that Petitioner No.7 Institute has complied with all requirements of law and has duly submitted the examination forms of its students, Respondent No.2 has in its list of students eligible for the ensuing examination to be held from 3 June 2014, not included the names of these 20 students of Petitioner No.7 – Institute. The Petitioners have, in the premises, approached this Court for urgent adinterim reliefs by way of directions to Respondent No.2 to allow the Petitioners and their fellow students to appear for the examination which starts from 3 June 2014. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that in a similar situation Aurangabad Bench of this Court has provisionally allowed students of another Nursing College to appear for the examination. Respondent No.2, who is the main contesting Respondent, has been duly served with the notice of today's application. learned Counsel for the Petitioners undertakes to file an affidavit of service within four days from today. Learned Counsel further undertakes to pay the requisite Court fees and remove all office objections and have the Petition numbered within two weeks from today. There is no explanation on record on the part of Respondent No.2 or 3, as to why inspection of Petitioner No.7 – Institute could not be carried out and suitability certificate issued till date, despite the fact that several applications have been made by Petitioner No.7 – Institute for such inspection and suitability certificate. It appears that even in the Petitioners' Civil Application, which was filed as far back as in September 2013, there is no response filed by the Respondents till date. In these circumstances, a primafaice case has been made out for grant of Rule and interim relief in the present case. 6 Accordingly, the following order is passed : (i) Rule. Rule made returnable within a period of eight weeks from today. (ii) By way of interim relief, Respondent No.2 is directed to allow the 20 students of Petitioner No.7 – Institute, including Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6, as per the list annexed at Exhibit "F" to the Petition to appear and sit for the examination of First Year Revised General Nursing Midwifery Course, which is to start from 3 June 2014. (iii) The interim relief granted hereby shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties. The appearance of the 20 students referred to above for the examination of First Year Revised General Nursing Midwifery Course shall be subject to the result of the Petition herein and any further orders that may be passed by this Court. (iv) The results of the examination of these 20 students shall not be declared without obtaining orders from this Court. (v) Parties to act on the True Copy of this order signed by Sheristedar of this Court. ( M.S. SONAK, J.) ( S.C. GUPTE, J. )

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5780 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 28 July 2014 Two weeks time is granted for payment of Bhatta. If Bhatta is paid within two weeks, issue notice to Respondents returnable within ten weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 28/07/2014

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5780 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 13 AUGUST 2014 Two weeks time is granted for payment of bhatta. If bhatta paid within two weeks, issue notice to Respondents returnable within eight weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 13/08/2014

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5780 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 10 SEPTEMBER 2014 Two weeks time is granted for payment of Bhatta. If Bhatta is paid within two weeks, issue notice to Respondents returnable within ten weeks. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 10/09/2014

Order - Status 13: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5780 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 7 October 2014 Two weeks time is granted as a last chance for payment of bhatta. If bhatta is paid within two weeks, issue notice to Respondents returnable within eight weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 07/10/2014

Order - Status 16: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5780 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders Advocate Tejaswini Dalvi is present on behalf of Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 03 DECEMBER 2014 Advocate to pay bhatta within two weeks, failing which W.P. shall stand dismissed for want of bhatta charges. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I gpj / 03.12.2014

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2516 OF 2021 Shri. Popat Baban Ghavte …. Petitioner Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. & Anr. … Respondents …...... Mr. R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner. Mr. Rohit Sakhdeo for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.M. Kulkarni a/w. Smt. A.A. Purav, AGP for for State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ. DATE : 7th JULY, 2021. …...... P.C. : Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that by an Order dated 20.04.2021 the Urban Development Department of Respondent No.1 started provisional pension to the Petitioner. Hence, the Petition is adjourned to 11.08.2021. ( SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. ) ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2516 OF 2021 Shri Popat Baban Ghavte … Petitioner V/s. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation … Respondent ------------------- Mr. R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner. Mr. Rohit Sakhdeo for the respondent no. 1. Ms. A.A. Purav-AGP. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2021. P.C. : . By consent, stand over to 6th September 2021. Learned AGP waives service for respondent no. 2 and seeks time to file Affidavit-in-reply. Affidavit-in-reply to be filed on or before 2 nd September 2021 and same shall be furnished to the petitioner as well as respondent-corporation. An oral prayer is made for 'speaking to the minutes' in respect of the order dated 7th July 2021. It is requested that 'Urban Development Department' be read as 'Corporation' and in the same order in 2nd line, the word 'Order' be read as 'Order/Communication'. A speaking to the minutes is allowed and order dated 7th July 2021 be corrected accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2516 OF 2021 Shri Popat Baban Ghavte ....PETITIONER V/S Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation ....RESPONDENT Mr. R M Pethe for Petitioner Mr. Rohit Sakhdeo for Respondent No. 1 Ms. A. A. Purav AGP for R. No. 2 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR, JJ DATE : 6th September, 2021 P.C. : Arguments are concluded. Judgment/ order is reserved. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: rkmore IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2516 OF 2021 Shri P Age – R/at F Adjace Dr.D.Y Ravet Shri Popat Baban Ghavte Age – 59 Years, Occupation-Retired, R/at Flat No.D-204, Runal's Royal Casa, Adjacent to Bhondwa Corner, Dr.D.Y. Patil College Road, S. No.206/4, Ravet, Pune – 411 044. ] ] ] ] ] ] Petitioner vs 1] Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp. A Body Corporate established under The Maharashtra Municipal Corporation] ] ] Act, 1949, Through its Municipal Commissioner, Having his Office at Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp. Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018. ] ] ] ] ] 2] The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department. ] ] ] Respondents Mr.R.I Mr.R.M. Pethe, for Petitioner. Mr.Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.1. Mrs.A.A. Purav, AGP for Respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & N.R.BORKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : 06.09.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : : 22.11.2021 JUDGMENT : (PER : N.R.BORKAR, J) 1] This petition takes an exception to the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by respondent No.1-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. 2] The petitioner was initially appointed as surveyor in respondent No.1-Corporation on 20.04.1987. Time Bound Promotion Scheme was introduced by Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995 to address the issue of stagnation. Under the said Scheme benefit of pay of promotional post was to be given to the employees who have completed 12 years of service in the same cadre. In terms of the said Scheme the petitioner was granted benefit of promotional pay by Office Order dated 07.12.2001 with effect from 20.04.1999. 3] The petitioner, thereafter, by order dated 09.04.2002 was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer. In view of the Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984 on completion of 5 years of service as Junior Engineer the petitioner, by order dated 10.06.2009 was designated as Sectional Engineer and his pay was revised. 4] By Government Resolution dated 20.07.2001 Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced and Time Bound Promotion Scheme was repealed. The said scheme was thereafter modified by Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010. Under the said Scheme first benefit of pay of promotional post was to be given on completion of 12 years of service and second benefit was made admissible on completion of 12 years of service after grant of first benefit. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted second benefit i.e. pay of promotional post under the modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 20.04.2011 by order dated 21.04.2015. 5] By the order impugned the second benefit which was granted to the petitioner by order dated 21.04.2015 came to be withdrawn, and recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner pursuant to the said order dated 21.04.2015 is ordered. 6] We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1. 7] We have perused the order impugned. Respondent No.1 has relied upon Clause 2(b)(3) of the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010 to withdraw the second benefit. According to the respondent No.1 the petitioner was granted first benefit by office order dated 7.12.2001 and second benefit by order dated 10.06.2009 by which pay of the petitioner was revised on being designated as Sectional Engineer. According to the respondent No.1, the petitioner was thus not entitled to any further benefit of pay of promotional post and it was wrongly granted to him by order dated 21.04.2015. 8] We have perused the Clause 2(b)(3) of the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010. It speaks of in certain situation what would constitute first benefit. It is, thus, clearly inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. Apart from it, this Court has dealt with similar controversy in the case of Association of the Sub-Ordinate Service of Engineers Maharashtra State and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2019(4) Mh.L.J. 629 . This Court has held : "30. Nonetheless, we would deal with the question on merits of the matter, independently. In the light of the facts, extracted above, in our view, the fate of the claim of the applicants hinges more on the construction of the GR dated 16 th April, 1984 than Clause 2(b)(3) of MACP Scheme. What was the nature of the dispensation given under the GR dated 16th April, 1984 ? From the text of the said resolution, the following salient features emerge: (i) The preamble indicates its object. It was decided to confer the gazetted status initially upon degree-holder junior engineers. Subsequently, it was decided to confer the gazetted status upon the under-qualifed and unqualifed junior engineers, also. (ii) While giving the gazetted status, the Government considered the aspects of the pay-scale to be given, the nomenclature of the post and the eligibility for conferring the gazetted status. (iii) The conferment of the gazetted status upon the degree-holder engineers was with efect from 1st April, 1981. Whereas the said status was deferred in the case of the underqualifed and unqualifed junior engineers, till they put in a specifed years of service, that is, fve years for three year diploma-holders, seven years for two year diploma-holders and ten years for unqualifed junior engineers. (iv) Two distinct cadres were created in the Maharashtra Engineering (Civil) Services Class-II, namely Assistant Engineer Grade-II, to be manned by degree-holder junior engineers, and sectional Engineer, to be manned by underqualifed/unqualifed junior engineers after putting in specifed years of service. (v) Both the cadres were to be placed in the pay-scale Rs.600-30-700-40-950. (vi) The posts of Assistant Engineer Class-II and Assistant Engineer Class-I, which were superior to that of the junior engineers, were to be re-designated as Assistant Engineer Grade-I and Assistant Executive Engineer, respectively. (vii) The duties and functions which the erstwhile junior engineers were discharging and performing would thenceforth be discharged and performed by the Assistant Engineer Grade-II and Sectional Engineers. It is evident that the aforesaid GR was an exercise in cadre review. The principal object of the aforesaid GR was to give gazetted status (Class-II) to junior engineers working at the lowest level. Not only the restructuring was done in the lowest cadre of junior engineers but also the immediately superior cadre of Assistant Engineer Class-II and Class-I were restructured. Yet, most importantly, the duties and functions which the erstwhile junior engineers discharged, were mandated to be discharged by the Assistant Engineers Grade-II and sectional Engineers. The primary purpose of the aforesaid GR was, thus, restructuring of the cadre and rechristening of the designation of the post. The placement of the under-qualifed and unqualifed junior engineers in the newly designated post of sectional engineers was deferred, till they put in the specifed years of service. It is pertinent to note that no new posts were sought to be created under the said GR. The fact that a new pay-scale was prescribed for both Assistant Engineers Grade-II and sectional Engineers, was incidental." .. This court has further held : "35. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the learned Vice-Chairman. Having held that the beneft of the pay revision under GR dated 16th April, 1984 was neither a promotion nor a functional upgradation, the Tribunal could not have held that the said upgradation was schematic. As indicated above, the entire exercise was driven by the objective of conferring the gazetted status and restructuring engineering service at the lowest level. The provision that the diploma- holder and unqualifed junior engineers were to be placed in the cadre of sectional engineers, after putting in a specifed years of service, was a measure to bring them at par with the degree-holder junior engineers. It was uniformly applicable to all. There was admittedly no element of selection. It is now well neigh recognised that the terms "promotion" and "upgradation" far from being identical and interchangeable are distinct and have specifc meaning and connotation in service jurisprudence. Promotion, in common parlance, connotes advancement to a higher position. Ordinarily promotion entails both enhanced position and pay. In legal parlance, promotion can be to a higher position as well as to a higher pay -scale. There can be promotion to a higher pay scale without there being an advancement to a higher position. Upgradation, on the other hand, is mere increase in the scale of pay, without any corresponding increase in position. There are shades to upgradation also. It may be upgradation simplicitor, available to all who satisfy the eligibility criteria. It may be preceded by selection. If upgradation involves a process of selection, as distinct from mere elimination, it may have the trappings of promotion, and in that event may be subject to quota rule or principle of reservation, wherever applicable. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal had committed an error in construing that the exercise of restructuring of the cadres, without there being any consequent creation of new posts and any change in the duties and responsibilities, constituted the grant of nonfunctional pay-scale for the mere reason that the pay-scale of all the junior engineers was revised, as a class." .. It is further held : Another factor, which has a material bearing on the claim of the applicants is that under ACP and MACP Scheme, the basic postulate is the beneft of pay-scale of the promotional post. It is nobody's case that under the GR dated 16 th April, 1984 the applicants were given the beneft of the pay-scale of the promotional post. Mere revision of the pay-scale can not be equated with the grant of pay-scale of the promotional post. On the contrary, it is pertinent to note that under the same GR, the Government had re-designated the next higher post as Assistant Engineers Grade-I and Assistant Executive Engineers. In this view of the matter, the denial of the 'second beneft' under the MACP Scheme, with reference to an exercise of cadre restructuring and the revision in pay scale, in the year 1984, appears to be legally unsustainable. We are, thus, inclined to answer the aforesaid question in the 'negative'. We hold and declare that the upgradation under GR dated 16th April, 1984 does not constitute grant of non-functional pay- scale and cannot be treated as the 'frst beneft' within the meaning of Clause 2(b)(3) of the GR dated 1st April, 2010. We are, thus, inclined to allow the petition." 9] This Court in the above Judgment in no uncertain terms has held that upgradation under Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984 does not constitute grant of non-functional pay scale and cannot be treated as the 'benefit' within the meaning of Clause 2(b)(3) of the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010. The respondent No.1 was, thus, not justified in withdrawing the second benefit granted to the petitioner by order dated 21.04.2015. The order impugned thus cannot be sustained. Hence, following order is passed : 1] Writ Petition is allowed. 2] The order impugned dated 16.03.2020 is quashed and set aside. [N.R.BORKAR, J] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2361 OF 2024 Smt. Jayashree Deepak Irale … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Rushikesh Barge for the Petitioner. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for the Respondent No. 2 – State. CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATE : 18 th JUNE, 2024. P.C.:- Heard. Perused the Petition. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 15th July, 2024. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1- State waives the notice and seeks time to file reply. Stand over to 15th July, 2024. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

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

Order - Status 5: 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 7: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents … … Ms. Priyanka Chavan for the petitioners. Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for respondent-State. CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 08TH FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C:- Stand over to 09/02/2021. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appearances of the Advocates as per Board dated 09/02/2021. … CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 09TH FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C:- Matters at serial numbers mentioned below of the Board stands discharged and will be taken first on 10th February, 2021, followed by the matters from the Causelist dated 10th February, 2021. Sr. Nos. Due Date 32, 35 to 41, 43 to 46, 48 to 51, 54 to 60, 62 to 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81 10-02-2021 Ad-interim /interim reliefs, if any, to continue till then. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 14: 31_wp.486.2021.doc Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.02.10 17:14:35 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde & another … Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & others … Respondents Ms.Priyanka Chavan for the Petitioners Mr.K.V. Saste, APP, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 10, 2021 P.C.: At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, stand over to Monday, the 15th February, 2021 . (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL / CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.291 OF 2021 (Sr.No.66) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.385 OF 2021 (Sr.No.67) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.402 OF 2021 (Sr.No.68) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.457 OF 2021 (Sr.No.69) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2021 (Sr.No.70) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.519 OF 2021 (Sr.No.71) IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 333/2021 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.540 OF 2021 (Sr.No.73) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.554 OF 2021 (Sr.No.74) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.575 OF 2021 (Sr.No.75) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 581 OF 2021 (Sr.No.76) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.617 OF 2021 (Sr.No.77) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.618 OF 2021 (Sr.No.78) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.639 OF 2021(Sr.No.83) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.643 OF 2021 (Sr.No.85) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.644 OF 2021 (Sr.No.86) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.645 OF 2021 (Sr.No.87) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.646 OF 2021 (Sr.No.88) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.648 OF 2021 (Sr.No.90) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.652 OF 2021(Sr.No.92) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.653 OF 2021 (Sr.No.93) ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.660 OF 2021 (Sr.No.94) Appearances of the Advocates as per Board dated 15/02/2021. CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C:- Due to paucity of time, the board is discharged for the day and the above matters are adjourned to 16/02/2021. Interim relief or ad-interim relief, if any in the above matters to continue till then. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents … Mr.Robin Fernandes i/b Ms.Priyanka Chavan for the Petitioners. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 16th FEBRUARY, 2021 P.C:- Learned APP submits that the concerned police officer had made sincere efforts to trace out the missing person, namely, Atul Ankush Shinde. However, the concerned police officer could not trace him out. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Agency, CID, Pune is having specialised police personnel to conduct the investigation. We are satisfied with the inquiry/investigation conducted by the concerned police officer. However, since the Investigating Agency, CID, Pune is a specialised agency, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to entrust further inquiry/investigation with the Investigating Agency, CID, Pune forthwith. List this petition on 8th March, 2021. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.02.17 20:52:26 +0530

Order - Status 20: (35) cri.wp-486.21.odt Laxmikant G. Chandan Digitally signed by Laxmikant G. Chandan Date: 2021.03.10 10:39:54 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde and anr. : Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. : Respondents. Ms. Priyanka Chavan for the Petitioner. Dr. F R Shaikh, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, MANISH PITALE, JJ DATE : 09th MARCH 2021 P.C. 1 Dr. F R Shaikh, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent/State, on instructions, submits that inquiry/investigation is transferred to CID Branch, State of Maharashtra. He, therefore, prays two weeks time so as to enable him to take instructions. At his request, stand over to 05/04/2021. [MANISH PITALE, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde And Ors. PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. RESPONDENT Smt. Priyanka Chavan for Petitioner Dr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent - State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE, JJ DATE : 5th April, 2021 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP for the Respondent - State, S.O. to 21/04/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde And Ors. PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 27th July, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde And Ors. PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. RESPONDENT PRIYANKA CHAVAN for Petitioner. Mrs. M. H. Mahatare, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 3rd August, 2021 P.C. : S. O. to 04/08/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde and Anr. ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2021.08.05 10:31:28 +0530 VISHAL Ms. Priyanka Chavan, for the Petitioner Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 04, 2021 P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mrs. Mhatre, learned APP, on instruction, seeks time to carry out further investigation so as to trace out the missing person. Ms. Chavan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that she is not averse to granting time to the investigating agency. At the request of learned APP list on 21st September, 2021. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 30: WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2021 Amol Ankush Shinde & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Ms.Priyanka Chavan for Petitioners. Ms.A.S. Pai, PP for State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATED : 2 FEBRUARY 2022 P.C. : . At the request of learned PP, three weeks time is granted to submit report to this court. S.O. to 23 February 2022. (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

Order - Status 5: R. B. Bohora Educational & Welfare Trust .. Petitioner -versus Vijay. V Mundaware .. Respondent. Mr. C.G. Gavnekar, for the Petitioner. S. N. Bhosle, AGP for respondent No.9. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED: 22nd July, 2010 P.C. vks Issue Notice before admission, returnable on 23.8.2010. In the meanwhile there shall be interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c). (R. V. MORE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET WRIT PETITION NO.5595 OF 2010 1 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Suhas Deokar i/b Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the petitioner Mr.R.M.Patne ,A.G.P for the respondent No.9 CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 23,2010 P.C.: 1 Await service till 17th September 2010. In the meanwhile, Advocate for the petitioner will serve private notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 8. If Affidavit of service is not filed on or before 15th September 2010, Petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till further orders. JUDGE

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5595 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri C.G. Gavnekar for the Petitioner. Shri J. Shekhar i/;by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Shri Suhas S. Deokar for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Shri Suresh Bhosale, AGP for the Respondent No.9. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C.: . Heard Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st , 3 rd and 4th Respondents. Heard learned AGP for Respondent No.9. The impugned order has been passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts act, 1950. Considering the scope of Section 41A of the said Act, prima facie, it appears that the impugned order could not have been passed in exercise of the said power. Rule. There will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d). Ash Notwithstanding pendency of this petition and grant of interim relief, it will be open for the parties to take action in accordance with law. (A.S.OKA, J)