All Writ Petition (Civil)

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

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian. ..Petitioner. Versus The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudale for the Petitioner. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, learned APP for the State. Mr. S. G. Surana for Respondent No. 5. Mr. Mahesh Vaswani, Mr. Javed Gheewala, Dharini Nagda, Anushree Kulkarni for Respondent No. 6 and 7. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : February 2, 2015 . P. C. : Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to amend the prayer clause. Leave granted. Necessary amendment be carried out within a week. Place the writ petition for admission on 16th February 2015. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian. ..Petitioner. Versus The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudale for the Petitioner. Mr. S. G. Suvarna for Respondent No. 5. Mr. U. V. Kejriwal, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : March 17, 2015 . P. C. : By the order dated 2nd February 2015, we granted leave to the Petitioner to amend the prayer clause. The Petitioner, however, not only amended the prayer clause but has also inserted paragraph No.11a to 11j in the main petition without seeking leave of the Court. Besides, the Petitioner without leave of the Court, has annexed Exhibit-F to N. Registry is directed to submit explanation in what circumstances, the Petitioner was allowed to carry out amendment by introducing paragraph 11a to 11j and annexe Exhibit-F to N, without leave of the Court to that effect. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian .. Petitioner v/s. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.G. Kudle for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Suvarna for respondent no.5 Ms. Dharini Nagda i/b Javeed Mohd. Gaus Gheewala for respondent nos. 6 and 7 CORAM: RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED: 31st MARCH, 2015. P.C. We have gone through the explanation offered by Mrs. Mali, Section Officer. We accept the explanation, however, Section Officer is directed to be more cautious in future. Mr. Kudale, learned Counsel for the petitioner has carried out amendment contrary to the order dated 02.02.2015 hence, the paragraphs, which are inserted contrary to the order of amendment, shall be removed. Stand over to 6th April, 2015. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian ..Petitioner. V/s. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.G.Kudle for the petitioner. Mrs.U.V.kejriwal, APP for respondent-State. Mr.M.S.Surana for respondent No.5. Mr.Mahesh Vaswani i/b. Mr.Javeed Mohd. Gaus Gheewala for respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2015 P.C. :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, Mr.Kudle, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his petition to the relief claimed in prayer (c). Statement is accepted. Mr.Kudale in this regard relies upon his application dated 29th November, 2013 (annexed at Exhibit-L, page 80 of the petition) seeking police protection, which is pending since last two years. Learned APP having taken instructions states that said application will be decided by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Protection Branch), Mumbai as expeditiously as possible. In the above circumstances, we direct the Deputy Commissioner (Protection Branch), Mumbai to dispose of the petitioner's application within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Order accordingly. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 5: Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.03.02 17:16:24 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1001 OF 2021 Srinivasan Ravindran Sarma ] Residing at A/105, Supernal Gardens, ] Dhokali Naka, Kolshet Road, ] Thane (West) – 400 607 ] Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra ] ] 2. Mrs.Neeta Srinivasan Sarma ] Residing at 1st Floor, 'B' Wing, ] 101, Violet Apartment, Near Janta ] Sahakari Bank, Murbad Road ] Syndicate, Kalyan (West)-421301 ] Respondents Ms.Priyanka S. Sangare for the Petitioner. Ms.Sana Hakim for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 present in Court. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. PSI Manjusha V. Shelar, MFC Police Station present. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 01st MARCH, 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. It is common contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.2 that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and to that effect, consent terms are placed on record before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 had tendered across the bar, affidavit of respondent No.2. Same is taken on record. In the said affidavit, details of the settlement are averred. Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. She has been identified by her counsel. She has stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into such settlement and pray for quashing of the impugned FIR and proceedings arising out of the said FIR, in view of the consent terms filed before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and 1 2012 (10) SCC 303 extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It has also held that inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, respondent No.2 is not going to participate in the said proceedings and chances of the conviction of the petitioner would be bleak and remote and, therefore, further continuation of the proceedings in RCC No.730 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 495, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, would be an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings bearing RCC No.730 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 495, 504 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar

Order - Status 5: spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune ... Petitioner. V/s. Shir Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Shekhar i/by J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 11th July 2011 P.C. 1 Issue notice to the respondents returnable at the end of eight weeks. Notice to indicate that the petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2 In addition to the court service, the petitioner is directed to serve the respondents by a private notice by hand delivery or by speed post registered AD and file affidavit of service on or before the next date. 3 In the meanwhile, it is clarified and ordered that the order of injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court shall not in any prevent the petitioner from initiating any proceedings in accordance with the law. The petitioner, however, shall not disturb the possession of the respondents nor evict them except by due process of law. (D.G.KARNIK, J) .....

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune .. Petitioners v/s. Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam for respondent no.3 Mr. S.R. Agarkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 26th MARCH, 2012. P.C. : Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed R.C. Suit No.99 of 2010. In the said suit, learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar passed order on 30th November, 2010 thereby restraining present petitioners from demolishing the suit property and from constructing the compound wall till the final disposal of the suit. The said Judge also issued an order of injunction restraining the petitioner nos.1 and 2 from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property till the disposal of the suit. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Civil Appeal No.369 of 2010. The said appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge14, Pune by order dated 19th April,l 2011. Hence, this writ petition is filed. After having perused the impugned order, it is clear that the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and issued an order of injunction. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed by the appellate Court i.e. District Court. In such a situation, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners shall adopt appropriate proceedings to redress their grievances so far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a competent Court. Statement made by learned advocate for the petitioners is recorded. As and when such proceedings are filed, the petitioners are free to apply to the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, Dist. Pune for vacation the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar on 30th November, 2010 on the ground that no purpose will be served by continuing the order of injunction on account of the proceedings, which would be filed by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observation, petition stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5339 OF 2013 Shri Bartol Degin Farnat and Ors ..Petitioners Vs. Shri Pascol Manvel Gonsalves and Ors ..Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik,for the Petitioners. Mr. P. B. Shah i/b Mr. Kayval P. Shah,for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J. DATE : JULY 1, 2013. P. C.: 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the PetitionersPlaintiffs submits that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the road in question is of 20 feet wide and it has been reduced to 2.8 feet because of the obstruction created by the Defendants in the way. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner. However, there is no finding recorded, on prima facie assessment of the case on the question whether there existed 20 feet road and that it was reduced to 2.8 feet by the Aswale 1/2 5339.13.wp Defendants by creating obstruction. In the absence of any such finding, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The same needs to be quashed and set aside. The orders are required to be remanded back to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 3 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 4 The order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Trial court and also by the Appellate Court dated 12.04.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. 5 The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to decide Exhibit5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 159 OF 2009, afresh within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. 6 Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.07.2013. 7 The Trial Court is at liberty to grant adinterim relief, if such is claimed by the parties. ( RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …… Mrs. Veena J. Kamble, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Ruchita Pawar, Respondent No. 1 in person. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : S. S. Shinde J. DATED : 12th June, 2019 P.C . Respondents No. 1 is present in Court. Learned APP Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar interacted with Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has made request to appoint advocate to represent her. Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to appoint senior advocate from the panel within a period of one week to represent Respondent No. 1. At the request of Respondent No. 1 stand over to 4th July 2019. [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 7: 48-wp-2531-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr.Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …... Mrs.Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajit M. Savagave for the Respondents. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE J. DATE : 4 JULY 2019 P.C.: The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Hence, remove from board. …... (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Ms. Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : 1 Liberty to move before Vacation Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ..Petitioner Vs Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Veena Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Savagave for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th November 2019. P.C.: 1] At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that, there is an arrears of Rs.1,42,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. 2] Before the petitioner be heard on merits, the petitioner is directed to either deposit the said amount of arrears in the Registry of this Court or to pay to the respondent No.1 directly within a period of one month from today. 3] Stand over to 7th January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ....Petitioner V/S Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Jyotsna Kamble For Respondent Adv.S.S.Hulke APP for State CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 22nd January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. , Stand over to 29/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: Bharat D. Pandit by Bharat D. 13:17:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar …. Petitioner. V/s Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar and Ors. ….. Respondents. ---- None for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020 P.C.:- Stand over to 30/1/2020 for dismissal. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 30th January, 2020 P.C.: The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in compliance with the last order, the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- in this Court by tomorrow. The petitioner is present in the Court. Since the statement is made on instructions, the same is accepted as an undertaking. The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- as undertaken. The respondent-wife will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited. The learned Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under the provisions of D.V. Act ordered maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and additional Rs.4,000/- towards accommodation expenses, which was modified in appeal under Section 23 of the D.V. Act by reducing the amount of accommodation expenses to Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner-husband feeling aggrieved preferred this petition. The contention of the counsel of the petitioner is, the petitioner is a self employed and though he earns very meager income, he is ready and willing to maintain his wife. According to him, the respondent-wife is resident of Mumbai and presently staying with her parents. He would further urge that there is independent source of income, as the respondent is practising profession of beautician. While countering aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife would urge that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent as the petitioner is in habit of not Dusane 3/4 905 wp 2531.2019.doc attending family duties his routine conduct creates serious doubt that the petitioner has some extra marital affair. According to the respondent, even if the respondent has taken training of beautician, still her earning from such profession is not sufficient to maintain herself. As such, she is forced to stay with her parents. Having appreciated rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is self employed person, as such his average income is around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month i.e. Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. In the aforesaid background order of award of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is very much justified. As the respondent-wife is staying with her parents and it is not her case that she intend to stay independently or her parents are incurring expenses towards the rent, the order of award of accommodation charges, in my opinion, is not justified. As such, the order of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is confirmed, whereas, the order of award of accommodation charges of Rs.2,000/- per month is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner will be liable to pay accommodation charges till this date of the order. In response to the Court query, the petitioner submits that he shall clear entire arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks from today, which statement is accepted as an undertaking. Let the entire amount be deposited in the Court of Magistrate within four weeks from today, to which the respondent-wife will be entitled to withdraw. The petition is partly allowed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 19: Dusane 1/1 906.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner. Shri. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondent Shri. N.B. Patil, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 5th February, 2020 P.C.: Time to deposit the amount is extended till tomorrow, i.e. 6th February, 2020. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 7: SSK/33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1904 OF 2009 Laxman Arjun Dongre ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. N. Gawade, APP. CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20th APRIL, 2010. P.C.: None appears for the petitioner. This petition was filed in July-2009. With the passage of time, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the petition and hence, nobody is appearing for the petitioner. We are therefore, constrained to dismiss this petition for non-prosecution. Order accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.) (D. B. BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2010 1 Tulsibai Shankar Vaijal & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors....Respondents Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b Mr.A.L.Patki for the petitioners Mr.Hemang S. Rathattha for the respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MAY 3, 2010 P.C.: 1 This petition challenges the order passed on application for review of the order passed in Notice of Motion no.1373 of 2003. The petitioner has preferred an Appeal from Order stamp no.10602 of 2010 for challenging the order passed on the Notice of Motion. These two matters will have to be heard by the same Court. 2 The Registrar (Judicial-I) will take appropriate administrative order in this behalf from the Hon ble the Chief Justice. JUDGE ssp

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2010 WITH C.A.NO.3286 OF 2015 IN W.P.NO.3482 OF 2010 WITH C.A.NO.3287 OF 2015 IN W.P.NO.3482 OF 2010 ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 WITH C.A.(ST.) NO.17024 OF 2010 IN A.O.(ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 WITH C.A.NO.828 OF 2010 IN A.O.(ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 WITH C.A.(ST.) NO.10606 OF 2010 IN A.O.(ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 WITH C.A.(ST.) NO.30556 OF 2010 IN A.O.(ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 Tulsibai Shankar Vaijal and others … Petitioners Vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority and another … Respondents Mr. Abhay L. Patki for Petitioners and Appellants in WP and AO respectively. Mr. Jayesh Mestry i/b. Mr. Hemang R. for Respondent-MHADA. Mr. Drupad Patil for Interveners in C.A.No.3287/15 in WP 3482 of 2010 and C.A.(St.) No.30556 of 2010 in A.O.(St.) No.10602 of 2010. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2015 P.C. : Not on Board. At the request of Mr. Patki, taken up in the production board. WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2010 Heard Mr. Patki, learned Counsel for petitioners, Mr. Mestry, learned Counsel for respondent-MHADA. Mr. Patki seeks leave to withdraw this Petition unconditionally as the parties have filed consent terms in Writ Petition (L) No.14050 of 2015. He also seeks leave to delete respondent No.1. Leave is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith On the motion made by Mr. Patki, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the disposal of the Petition, Civil Application No.3286 of 2015 for impleadment of applicants as respondents No.3 to 7 as also Civil Application No.3287 of 2015 for impleadment of applicants as respondents No.3 and 4 do not survive and the same are disposed of as such. APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 Heard Mr. Patki, learned Counsel for appellants, Mr. Mestry, learned Counsel for respondent-MHADA. Mr. Patki seeks leave to delete respondent No.1. Leave is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Mr. Patki submitted that by the administrative order dated 03.02.2010, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has tagged this Appeal from Order along with Writ Petition No.3482 of 2010. He seeks permission to withdraw this Appeal from Order unconditionally in view of the parties filing consent terms in Writ Petition (L) No.14050 of 2015. On the motion made by Mr. Patki, Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn and is dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, C.A.(St.) No.17024 of 2010 for impleadment of applicants as respondents No.3 to 7 as also C.A.No.828 oF 2010 for condonation of delay, C.A.(St.) No.10606 OF 2010 for injunction and C.A.(St.) No.30556 of 2010 do not survive and the same are disposed of as such. Order accordingly. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4746 OF 2005 Miss Neha Achrekar. ... ... Petitioner v/s. Directorate of Technical Education. ... Respondent Mr.Mihir Desai with Mr.R.A.Rodrigues and Mr.B.V.Phadnis for petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for respondent. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ. DATE : 20th July 2005 ORAL ORDER : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner herein is seeking an admission to the management course either for MBA or MMS for the academic year 2005-2006 though the examination under the State Government. She has appeared for the Central Entrance Test (CET) held by the State Government and has passed the CET. Her only problem is that though she claims to belong to an Other Backward Class (OBC), she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate when she filled up the form. She has obtained it now and before the allotment of students to the colleges starts. That process is to be held tomorrow i.e. on 21st July 2005. Hence, urgency in the matter. -1- Considering the urgency of the matter, we issue Rule and make it returnable forthwith. Mr.Nargolkar, learned AGP, has fairly proceeded with the matter on instructions of one Mr.S.V. Kolla, Assistant Director (Technical), who is present in Court. He has opposed the reliefs in the petition without filing a reply. He has drawn our attention to the relevant rules in this behalf, which according to us, is sufficient by way of defence of the respondent. As stated above, the petitioner appeared for the CET held in February 2005. While filling the form, she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate. The instructions contained in the rules for admission to this course are annexed at Exhibit-A to the petition. In the rule on confirmation of submission of application forms at Application Receipt Centre (ARC), it is provided as under:- "If the ARC officer finds that the supporting documents are not enough to claim for a valid candidature then the submitted application form will not be accepted for any further processing. " -2- The petitioner, therefore, formed an impression that since she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate and if she applies in the O.B.C. category, her application will be rejected. She, therefore, filled up the form in the open category. It has so transpired that subsequently she did get the Non-creamy layer certificate on 15th June 2005. She did not have the caste certificate which was issued way back in the year 1994. As per the brochure of admissions in Annexure-4, it is provided in Clause-10 that confirmation of submission of online option forms of all types of candidates is permissible until 12th July 2005. The petitioner, therefore, gave a letter to the Authorities concerned on 12th July 2005 itself and produced her Non-Creamy Layer certificate and requested that her application be considered in the O.B.C. category. She was told orally that such an application would not be entertained. The petitioner's case is that if she claims through OBC, undoubtedly she has better chances of securing the admission. Mr.Desai, learned Counsel appearing for -3- the petitioner, submitted that when one reads the above-referred rule along with a subsequent Notification dated 4th July 2005, it will be clear that the approach of the respondent was too technical. He relied upon the subsequent Notification dated 4th July 2005 which provided as under:- " Those candidates who have submitted the application form in reserved category and were unable to submit the Non-creamy layer Certificate, Caste Certificate and hence converted to open category can submit the same at the time of confirmation of option form at ARCs for availing the benefits of reservation. " He submitted that this particular rule will have to be read to mean that those who have the documents in support showing the Non-creamy layer certificate status should be permitted to submit such documents at the time of confirmation of option which means up to 12th July 2005. Mr.Nargolkar, learned AGP appearing for the respondent, submitted that this relaxation of 4th July 2005 will apply to only those candidates -5 who have submitted the application forms in reserved category. It is only in case of such candidates who fail to give the Non-creamy layer certificates that they have been given this option to submit the same later-on until the confirmation of option. He further submitted that the petitioner has not stated in the application form that she belongs to the OBC and, therefore, now she cannot be permitted to produce the Non-creamy layer certificate. That facility could have been availed of only if she had applied originally for the OBC community. Mr.Desai countered his submission by pointing out that as per the rule which is included in the instructions to fill the form and which we have quoted earlier, if one did not have the necessary document at the relevant time, the application was liable to be rejected. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner had no option but to apply in open category. She has very fairly stated her position in her letter dated 12th July 2005. In his submission, a candidate like the petitioner herein should be entertained under the Notification of relaxation dated 4th July 2005. We have noted the submissions of both the Counsel. If a strict view is taken perhaps Mr.Nargolkar would be right in making the submission that he has made. However, while looking to this provision of relaxation, one has certainly to look to other instructions which are given while filling up the form. The petitioner herein honestly filled the form in the open category since she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate at the relevant time. A fact that she had been issued the caste certificate way back in the year 1994 is clear from the record. It is not an after-thought. Only the Non-creamy layer certificate remained to be obtained and on obtaining the same, she approached the Authorities within the limitation i.e. up to 12th July 2005. No prejudice is being caused to anybody inasmuch as she does have the certificate and she is making the same available to the Authorities within the time limit. It is not the case that she is giving the certificate any time thereafter. In a matter like this, a highly technical and rigid attitude is not expected from the Authorities as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & ors. reported in AIR 2004 S.C. 5043. In that matter, -6- the petitioner claimed an admission to a medical course on the footing that her father was in the armed forces and was a permanently disabled person. There was a slight delay in giving the relevant certificate. What the Apex Court observed in para-7 thereof is quite relevant. This para-7 reads as under:- " 7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the country. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. " Thus, as stated by the Apex Court, one must have the qualification at the relevant time, though the proof in support thereof may, in some cases, be made available a little later. In the present case, the petitioner did have the original documents of belonging to the OBC community and she also has the Non-creamy layer certificate. Both these documents are being made available before the cut off date. Surely, this will be a case which will be stronger than the one which was before the Apex Court as referred to hereinabove. In the circumstances, we allow this petition and direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's case as belonging to the reserved category and her application will be considered -8- -9 when the options and colleges are decided i.e. on 21st July 2005. Rule is made absolute as above. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (SMT. R.S.DALVI, J.)