All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan … Petitioner Vs. Shri Dr. K. Venkateshan & Ors. … Respondents ------- Mrs. Misbaah Solkar a/w Mr. Amin Solkar, advocates for the petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents-State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & N.B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ. DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020 P.C. : Heard. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 10/02/2020. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and assures this court that original record pertaining to the detention of the detenu maintained by the respondents will be made available on the next date of hearing. (N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.) Mugdha 1 of 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner Versus Shri Dr.K.Venkateshan & Ors. ...Respondents …… Ms.Misbaah Solkar i/b. Mr.Amin Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.G.BISHT, JJ. …… DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2020 P.C.: The learned APP has tendered across the bar a copy of affidavit of Deputy Secretary (In-charge), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai. The same is taken on record. At the request of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, stand over to 11th February, 2020. (V.G.BISHT, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner Versus Dr. K. Venkateshan and Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Misbah Solkar i/by Mr. Amin Solkar for Petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent – State. *** CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & V. G. BISHT, JJ. DATE : 11th FEBRUARY, 2020 PER COURT : Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner for sometime. At her request, stand over to 12th February, 2020. (V.G. BISHT, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner vs. Dr.K. Venkateshan & Ors. ...Respondents Ms.Misbah Solkar i/b Mohd. Amin H. Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh APP for Respondent-State. …… CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.G.BISHT, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2020 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Reserved for judgment for pronouncement of judgment on 21st February, 2020. (V.G.BISHT, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 07 OF 2020 Shamim Makmood Khan Age : 65 years, Occ : Business Resident of A.D. Camp Chowk, 1140, In front of Aaina Majjid, Bhavani Peth, Pune ] ] ] ] ]PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shri. Dr. K. Venkateshan Commissioner of Police Pune City. ] ] ] 2. The State of Maharashtra ] ] ] 3. The Superintendent of Jail Yerwada Central Prison, Pune ] ] ] ] 4. The Secretary, Advisory Board (MPDA), Mantralaya, Mumbai ] ] ]RESPONDENTS Ms. Misbaah Solkar i/by Mr. Amin Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & V. G. BISHT, JJ. Reserved on : 12th FEBRUARY 2020 Pronounced on : 21st FEBRUARY 2020 JUDGMENT :- (PER S. S. SHINDE, J) 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner Shamim Makmood Khan, who is the mother of Detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan, has preferred this Petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against the dentenu on 16th October, 2019 by Respondent No. 1 – Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The said detention order has been passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act'). The said detention order has been issued as, according to the Detaining Authority, the Detenu is a Dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is based on two Crimes i.e. C.R. No. 188/2019 occurred on 09.06.2019 registered with Samarth Police Sation, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with 4/25 of the Arms Act read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and another incident i.e. C.R. No. 208/2019 occurred on 11.07.2019 registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 324, 506(2), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', recorded. 3 Though number of grounds have been raised in the present Petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner / Detenu has pressed only five grounds before us i.e. Ground Nos. 'A', 'B', 'C', 'F', and 'O'. Those grounds are reproduced herein below in verbatim:- A. The Petitioner says and submits that the orders annexed and marked at Exhibits "A" and "B" are manifestly erroneous and patently illegal in as much as the same are based in total defiance to the facts of the case, and the said orders also display a complete non-application of mind and is malafide on the part of the Detaining Authority. B. The Petitioner says and submits that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order entailing his detention under the provisions of the said Act. None of the activities of the detenu, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, can be said to be disturbing the maintenance of public order and as such the orders are obviously illegal, bad in law, malafide, unconstitutional and unsustainable. C. The Petitioner says and submits that it is obligatory on the part of the Respondent No. 1 under Section 3 (3) of the said Act to send a REPORT forthwith in respect of the detention, together with the grounds of detention and other particulars to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to furnish details of the exact date on which the proposal and the findings and also the copies of the documents relied upon were placed before him and also the exact date on which he submitted the said report under Section 3(3) to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to furnish the details of the exact date on which the said report was actually received by it. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to state as to what were the documents accompanying the said report and are further called upon to state whether the grounds of detention, as formulated by Respondent No. 1 and the material on which the grounds are based as well as other documents, if any, including the proposal and the findings were forwarded to Respondent No. 2 together with the said report. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to furnish all details about the consideration, if any, of the said report including the date of which such consideration, if any, and the exact date of the approval of the detention order and the exact date of issuance of the order of approval. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to state whether the approval, if any, was by a person competent and duly authorized under the relevant Rules of Business and/or the Standing Orders issued thereunder, to exercise the power of the State Government under section 3(3) of the said Act. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to furnish the above information to this Hon'ble Court based on the authentic contemporaneous official records and by due production thereof, before this Hon'ble Court since the documents relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention were not sent along with the order of detention for approval and if at all sent it was only after the order of detention was allegedly passed. If any of the provisions of the Section 3(3) of the said Act are not strictly observed or complied with, the detention and/or continued detention is illegal, unsustainable, unconstitutional, null and void. F. The Respondent No. 1 is bound to produce for the scrutiny of this Hon'ble Court the proposal and the findings for the detenu's detention, relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention. If the grounds of detention are no more than a repetition of the proposal with minor grammatical and consequential variations, there cannot be a greater proof of non-application of mind. It is well settled that the liberty of a Subject is a serious matter and the same cannot be trifled with any such casual, indifferent and routine manner. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to state whether before formulating the grounds of detention, he did go through the opinion of different subordinate officers, if any, written on the said proposal. The Respondent No. 1 having gone through the opinion of his subordinate Officers and having been influenced by them in formulating the grounds of detention and in the passing of the detention order, then the said detention order suffers from non-application of mind and is illegal, malafide, unconstitutional, null and void. O. The Petitioner says and submits that the recording of "In-Camera" statements seems to be fabricated and got-up statements in order to put the detenu behind bars under Preventive Detention. The Petitioner says and submits that, even otherwise, the incidents mentioned therein are stale, remote and not proximate in time and, therefore, the order of detention smacks of malafides. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relying upon Grounds A, B, C, F and O submits that there was non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention; there was delay in passing the order of detention; the alleged in-camera statements are fabricated and not properly verified by the Detaining Authority. She further submits that there was delay in submitting the proposal to Mantralaya by the Detaining Authority seeking approval of detention of Detenu. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the following judgments :- 1] Anil vs State of Maharashtra and ors. 1 2] Rashid Shaukat Husain Sayyed @ Jagga vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. 2 and 3] Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar vs S Ramamurthi & ors. 3 1 2000(2) Mh.LJ 400 2 Order Bombay High Court dated 01/03/2018 in Cri.WP No.5284/2017. 3 AIR 1994 SC 656 5 On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State invites attention of this Court to the order of detention so also the grounds and the replies filed by the respective Respondents/Authorities and submits that the Detaining Authority after proper application of mind has passed the impugned order of detention. She further submits that there is no delay in passing the order of detention. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned APP pressed into service the exposition of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Govind Murudkar v/s. R. H. Mendonca & ors. decided on 10/03/2000 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2090 of 1999 (Coram : Vishnu Sahai and P V Kakade, JJ). It is submitted that the Detaining Authority relied upon two crimes i.e. C.R. No. 188/2019 and C.R. No. 208/2019, both registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune, and two in-camera statements while passing the order of detention. It is submitted that in the grounds of detention it is made clear that paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 are referred only for the purpose of showing that the Detenu is a habitual offender and the said grounds/material referred therein have not been considered by the Detaining Authority while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. It is further submitted that the Detaining Authority has specifically stated in his reply that only paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention are taken into consideration while passing the order of detention. It is also submitted that the statement of witnesses in-camera are recorded after adhering to the proper procedure and those are verified by the Detaining Authority. She submits that the noting in the original file would make it clear that the Detaining Authority has personally seen those statements. It is submitted that the 2nd in-camera statement was recorded on 10/08/2019 and the detention order has been passed on 16/10/2019, as the proposal was routed through the concerned government authorities, time was consumed in processing the proposal and therefore it cannot be said that there was delay in passing the order of detention against the Detenu. The learned APP invites attention of this Court to the specific averments made in the reply filed by Respondent-1 i.e. the Detaining Authority so also the reply filed by the Sponsoring Authority, and submits that the contentions raised in Ground Nos. A, B, C, F and O are specifically dealt with and replied and therefore there is no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was nonapplication of mind by the Detaining Authority or there was delay in passing the order of detention or that in-camera statements are fabricated. It is submitted that the ground of delay in passing the order of detention has not been specifically raised by the Petitioner in the Petition and therefore the said ground orally agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner may be kept out of consideration. In support of the aforesaid contentions the learned APP relied upon following judgments :- 1] Hemlata K Shah vs State of Maharashtra and anr 4 and 2] Hetchin Haokip vs State of Manipur & ors. 5 4 (9181) 4 SCC 647 5 (2018) 9 SCC 562 6 We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions. With the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State, we have carefully perused pleadings in the Petition and specifically the grounds A, B, C, F and O raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 7 It is true that in the grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has stated that the offences registered against the Detenu mentioned in Paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 are considered only for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that the Detenu even in past indulged in the similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Upon careful perusal of the reply filed by Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority, in paragraph 8 thereof it is stated that Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority has carefully gone through the material placed before him and he has subjectively satisfied that, the Detenu is a weapon-wielding dangerous desperado of violent character, indulging in terrorizing activities and since 2014 the Detenu is engaged in criminal activities, and the criminal activities of the Detenu have created a reign of terror in the minds of people. It is further stated that the Detenu and his accomplices move, armed with deadly weapons such as Koyata, knife, wooden stick and sword and do not hesitate to use the same while committing the offences such a robbery, hurt etc. Furthermore, in the said paragraph it is stated that the Detenu also does not hesitate to use these deadly weapons for threatening the peace loving public residing with the jurisdiction of Samarth, Wanawadi and Lashkar Police Stations, Pune City. 8 It is next stated that the Detenu has been habitually committing offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code as well as under Chapter V of the Arms Act and thus the Detenu is a dangerous person as defined in Section 2(b-1) of the said Act. The criminal activities of the Detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detenu has thereby became dangerous to the lives and properties of people residing and carrying out their daily activities and vocations in the jurisdiction of Samarth, Wanawadi and Lashkar Police Stations in Pune City. There are 6 offences registered against the Detenu at Lashkar, Wanawadi and Samarth Police Stations in Pune City in addition to the two offences committed during past 6 months and that the dangerous criminal activities of the Detenu are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is further stated that in order to curb the criminal activities of the Detenu, preventive actions under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3(2) of MPDA were taken against him but the same had no deterrent effect on the Detenu. It is further stated that the Senior Inspector of Police, Samarth Police Station i.e. the Sponsoring Authority conducted a confidential enquiry of the criminal activities of the Detenu and his associates, and during the confidential enquiry the Sponsoring Authority recorded in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B" on 02/08/2019 and 10/08/2019. It is also stated that the incidents recorded in the in-camera statements also show that criminal activities of the Detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Lastly in paragraph 8, the Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority, has stated thus :- "after considering in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. Cr No.188/2019 and CR No.208/2019 and the documents placed before me by Sponsoring Authority, after perusing the said record, I was subjectively satisfied and after application of mind, I have passed the order of detention of the Detenu. As such the said order is legal, just and proper and as per the provisions of law and deserves to be confirmed." 9 In paragraph 9 of the reply Respondent No.1-Detaining Authority has stated thus :- "It is submitted that after my subjective satisfaction that the offences I considered for passing the Order of Detention are disturbing the public order and it is required to detain the detenu, I passed the order of detention under section 3(2) of MPDA Act 1981. It is further submitted that I being the Detaining Authority have passed the order of detention on the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1 and 6.2. As such in the said paragraph Nos.5.1, 5.2 particulars of offences mentioned, for passing order of detention." 10 The aforesaid averments would make it clear that while arriving at subjective satisfaction, the Detaining Authority has not only confined his application of mind to the two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. C R No.188/2019 and C.R. No.208/2019, but also the documents placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority. It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to confine his application of mind to the two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. C R No.188/2019 and C.R. No.208/2019 as has been stated in the grounds of detention while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. However, it appears that the Detaining Authority has relied upon paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 in which particulars of past offences are mentioned, and the material referred in the said paragraphs have been considered by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. 11 The offences i.e. CR No.188/2019 under Sections 392, 506(2) of the IPC r/w Section 37(1)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act r/w Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act r/w Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and CR No.208/2019 under Section 394, 324, 506(2), 34 of the IPC have been registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune City, however, it is apparent from the averments made in the affidavit in reply of Respondent No.1 i.e. the Detaining Authority that the Detaining Authority has considered the other offences registered with other two police stations i.e. Wanawadi Police Station and Lashkar Police Station, Pune City while passing the order of detention. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Detaining Authority has not considered the other crimes registered with other two police stations while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. 12 Though it is vehemently submitted by the learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State that there was no delay in passing the order of detention, nevertheless, from the reply filed by Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority it is clear that the Sponsoring Authority sent proposal of the detention of Detenu on 14/08/2019 to ACP Faraskhana Division, Pune, who after verifying the truthfulness and genuineness of the statements of witnesses sent the said proposal to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone I, Pune City. The said Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police forwarded the said proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune on 03/10/2019. The Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region has scrutinized the proposal and forwarded it to the Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB) Pune on 12/10/2019. The Police Inspector, Crime Branch (PCB) sent the said proposal to the DCP Crime Pune on 12/10/2019. The DCP Crime Pune forwarded it to the Additional Commissioner of Police Crime, Pune on 13/10/2019. Thereafter Additional Commissioner of Police Crime, Pune has scrutinized the proposal and submitted to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Pune on 14/10/2019. The Joint Commissioner of Police further scrutinized the said proposal and sent it to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Pune i.e. the Detaining Authority. Even if the time is reckoned from 14/08/2019 i.e. the date on which Sponsoring Authority sent the proposal to the ACP Faraskhana Division, Pune till 03/10/2019 i.e. the date on which Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I Pune sent the said proposal to the Additional Commissioner, South Region, Pune, more than 45 days time was taken by the authorities in perusing and scrutinizing the said proposal. Not only that, the Additional Commissioner of Police West Region, Pune has forwarded it to Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB), Pune on 12/10/2019. It is therefore clear that the Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region had also taken about 9 days time in forwarding the said proposal to the Police Inspector Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB), Pune. No plausible explanation has been offered by the Respondents Authorities as to why the proposal was kept pending by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone I, Pune City for a considerable period and then sent it to Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune on 03/10/2019 and as to why Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region, took 9 days time in scrutinizing and forwarding the proposal to Police Inspector, PCB Crime Branch, Pune. 13 In paragraph 9 of Pradeep Paturkar's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus :- "The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case." 14 In the facts of the present case, as observed herein above, delay in forwarding the said proposal by the DCP, Zone I Pune to the Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune remains unexplained, so also the further delay in forwarding the said proposal by the Commissioner of Police, West Region, Pune to Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB) also remains unexplained. So far as the said delay is concerned, there is no satisfactory or plausible explanation offered by Respondent No.1-Detaining Authority. Therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar (Supra), and since no plausible explanation has been offered for delay in passing the order of detention, it will have to be held that there was delay in passing the order of detention. 15 It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that relying upon 6 offences, which were registered against the Detenu in the past, the order of an externment was passed against the Detenu externing him from certain areas, and therefore relying upon the said past offences while passing the order of detention would amount to violation of mandate of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under :- "Art.20 (1)……. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3)…………." As already observed, the Detaining Authority in his reply stated that he has considered two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. CR No.188/2019 and CR No.208/2019 and also the offences mentioned in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the grounds of order of detention, while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. In that view of the matter, if the earlier offences are considered while passing the impugned order of detention, the Respondents Authorities were obliged to state proximity and live link between present proceedings for detention and those earlier offences registered against the detenu. 16 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs an irresistible conclusion is that the order of detention impugned in this Writ Petition cannot be legally sustained, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence the following order is passed :- ORDER A] The impugned order of detention bearing No. PCB/DET/3405/2019 dated 16/10/2019 issued under Section 3(2) of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 by Respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. B] The Detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. C] The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (V. G. BISHT, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) Laxmikant Digitally signed by Laxmikant G. Chandan G. Chandan Date: 2020.02.21 11:43:27 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 792 of 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.904 of 2005 Smt.Paskin Domnic Vaity .. Appellant versus Michael Pascol Pedade & ors. .. Respondents None for the appellant. Mr.Roop M. Vasudeo for the respondent no.12. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE,J DATED : 5th September 2005 P.C.: ... None for the applicant who are plaintiffs in L.C. Suit no.2068 of 2005. By the impugned order dated 5th May 2005, the Notice of Motion was made returnable on 1st July 2005 and at the same time, the prayer for ad-interim relief was refused. The trial Court considered the documents produced on record viz. 7/12 extracts and noted that the suit property was not in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. Appeal is therefore disposed of and hearing of the pending Notice of Motion is expedited. Civil Application does not survive. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.642 OF 2012 IN DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2012 IN SUIT STAMP NO.1400 OF 2012 IN S.C.SUIT NO.1387 OF 2012 Umesh Laxmikant Raikar ....Appellant Vs. Dilip Vasant Raikar ....Respondent Mr. U. S. R. Singh for the Appellant. Mr. Lalit Jain for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATE : 26th JULY 2012 P.C. : Mr. Lalit Jain, the learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that the submissions on the Notice of Motion have been substantially completed. The Respondent has completed his submissions and the submissions of the Appellant are partly complete. The Notice of Motion is kept for further hearing on 31st July 2012. In this circumstance, S.O. to 24th August 2012. (SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 642 OF 2012 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2012 Umesh Laxmikant Raikar ...Appellant/Applicant V/s. Dilip Vasant Raikar ...Respondent Mr. U.S.R. Singh for the Appellant/Applicant Mr. Lalit V. Jain for the Respondent CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATE: AUGUST 28, 2012 P.C.:- Mr. Sigh, learned counsel for the appellant, seeks leave to withdraw this Appeal from Order, as the respondent's Notice of Motion has been dismissed on 17th August, 2012. Leave is granted. Appeal from Order is disposed of as withdrawn. Civil Application does not survive, and stands disposed of accordingly. ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S M/s. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (i) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ....Respondent Mr.Akshay Prakash Shinde for Petitioners. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis- APP for the State. CORAM : SURENDRA PANDHARINATH TAVADE, J DATE : 2nd January, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 30/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Petitioners Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b Mr. Akshay Prakash Shinde for the Petitioners None for the Respondent No.1 Mr. A. R. Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2–State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. (THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING) THURSDAY, 6th JANUARY 2022 P.C. : 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order issuing process as against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Manoj Date, the proprietor of M/s. Anuj Textiles and the petitioner No. 2 is the mother of Manoj Date. He submits that both the petitioners are not concerned with the proprietary concern i.e. M/s. Anuj Textiles. He further submits that Manoj Date, as a proprietor of M/s. Anuj Textiles, had issued the cheques in question, which are dishonoured and that the petitioners have been arraigned as accused by virtue of their relations with Manoj Date and that they are not concerned with the said transaction. 3 Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 3rd February 2022. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2-State. In addition to Court notice, petitioners to serve the respondent No.1 by Advocate's notice and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 4 In the meantime, till the next date, the proceedings qua the petitioners, is stayed. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus M/s. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners. …. Mr. Govinda S. Gupta h/f Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for Respondent No.1. …. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PER COURT : The petition was circulated at the instance of respondent No.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Govind Gupta submits that the arguing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 is in difficulty and hence the petition may be adjourned. Stand over to 14th November, 2022. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ...Petitioner Versus M/s.. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay P. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PER COURT : Not on Board. Taken on Board. Papers are produced for extension of interim relief granted by this Court. By order dated 06.01.2022, the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the petition was listed on 28.09.2022 at the instance of the respondent and it was adjourned to 14.11.2022 but interim order dated 06.01.2022 has not been extended. Hence, the interim order is extended till the next date of hearing i.e. on 14.11.2022. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 1

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Eashkrupa Shiping & Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Verma for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2022 P.C.: Stand over to 2nd December, 2022. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is extended till 5th December, 2022. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Eashkrupa Shipping & Logistics (I) Pvt Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay P. Shide for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kumar Verma for respondent no.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the respondent no.2/State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 2, 2022 P.C.: The petitioners are accused nos.3 and 4. From the averments in the complaint, it is clear that accused no.1 is a proprietary firm of which accused no.2 is the sole proprietor. As per averments in the complaint, accused no.3 is the wife of accused no.2 and accused no.4 is the mother of accused no.2. In relation to the proprietary firm, it is stated in the complaint that accused nos.2, 3 and 4 jointly handled the day-to-day business affairs of respondent no.1 firm and, therefore, accused nos.3 and 4 are vicariously liable for the cheque issued by the accused no.1. Since accused no.1 is neither a firm nor a company, the provisions of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not attracted. Arguable questions are raised. Rule. There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) qua the petitioners only. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 18: Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date and Anr … Petitioners V/s. M/s. Eashkrupa Shipping and Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd and Anr … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b Mr. Akshay Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwinkumar Verma for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State/respondent No.2. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2023 P.C.: Learned advocate for the respondent No.1, on instructions, of the complainant the complainant has no objection to set aside the order dated 19th January, 2019. The order order dated 16th June, 2017 passed against the petitioners. He states that the complainant has no objection to quash the complaint against the petitioners. In view of consent of the complainant/respondent No.1, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15223 OF 2018 Tetra Park India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The Union Of India And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Prakash Shah i/b Pds Legal For CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 4th June, 2018 P.C. : Mentioned at 11.00 a,m, Place the matter on board for urgent admission on 11/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6151 OF 2018 Tetra Park India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The Union Of India And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Prakash Shah, i/b Pds Legal For Petitioner Mr Pradeep S.Jetly a/w D.P.Singh for Respdt. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 11th June, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 12/06/2018 at 3.00 p.m,. Mr Jetly has tendered affidavit in Court is kept in matter. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6151 OF 2018 Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. } Petitioner versus The Union of India and Ors. } Respondents Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. D. P. Singh for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE :- JUNE 12, 2018 P.C. :- After this writ petition was heard on the earlier occasion and even today, Mr. Jetly, on seeking instructions from the Joint Director General, Foreign Trade, who is also the deponent of the affidavit and present in court, states that the said Joint Director General will grant the petitioner the licences which are subject matter of the petition, namely, licence authorisation under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) and allow the petitioner to avail of the benefits of the schemes, that of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020. However, this is subject and without prejudice as well to the powers conferred in the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade/Directorate of Foreign Trade under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. We accept these statements made on instructions by Mr.Jetly as undertakings given to this court. In the light thereof, we are of the opinion that once licences would be granted in pursuance of the petitioner's applications, then, the orders of rejection of these applications made earlier do not survive. They stand quashed and set aside. Needless to clarify that once the above statements are made on behalf of the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and the Director General and the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, then, respondent no. 4-Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva shall not preclude or prevent the clearance of the consignments of the petitioner provided the petitioner can seek the benefit of the licences. The communication dated 14th May, 2018 from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Customs House Exhibit "II" to the petition to stand quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. (SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 of 2009 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders 3 or directions and Registrar's Orders None present for the applicant. respondent no.2. Ms.S.N.Dabhodkar i/b Mr.Samir Vaidya for Mr.S.A. Shaikh A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 11th March 2010. P.C. : Applicant and his counsel are absent when called. Application is dismissed for non prosecution/ default. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4542 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant V/s. Avit A. Bole .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 OF 2009 Ravindra M. Jadhav .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Another .. Respondents. Mrs. A.S.Pai, A.P.P. for State-Applicant in Cr. Appln. No.4542 of 2009. Shri C.K.Pendse, for Applicant in Cr. Appln. No.3167 of 2009. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : JUNE 30th, 2010. P.C. Criminal Application No.3167 of 2009 is already dismissed for default vide order dated 11th March, 2010 by another bench. Presently, there is no restoration application before this Court. However, the learned Advocate Shri Pendse submitted that Criminal Application No.392 of 2010 is already preferred for restoration. So far as Criminal Application No.4542 of 2009 is concerned, which is filed by the State, it is submitted by the learned A.P.P. for State, that applicants/original accused has violated certain conditions imposed while granting him bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay. She further states that she will take instructions from concerned Investigating Officer regarding stage of the matter and whether charge is framed and in that event, the present application can be conveniently disposed off, if not pressed by the State. S.O. to 14th July, 2010. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)

Order - Status 15: apln3167&4542-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [1] CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 OF 2009 Ravindra Madhukar Jadhav. Applicant. Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra, & 2. Avit Anant Bhole. Respondents. ALONG WITH [2] CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4542 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Avit Anant Bole. ..Respondent. .......... Mr.C.K. Pendse, Advocate for the Applicant in Cri.Application No.3167/2009. Mr.S.A. Vaidya, Advocate a/w. Mr.R.B. Mokashi, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Cri.Application No.3167/2009 and respondent in Cri.Application No.4542/2009. Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State in both applications. .......... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 06TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. By the present order both these applications for cancellation of regular bail are being disposed of, as what is challenged in both the applications, respectively by the orig.complainant and by the State, is the order dated 1st July, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay granting regular bail to the present respondent/orig.accused. Prior to appreciating the rival submissions so far as cancellation or otherwise of the regular bail, certain factual position as per the narrations in the FIR is required to be mentioned. The incident happened on the night of 31st May, 2009. The first informant was proceeding towards his home after consuming some liquor along with his three friends. At about 11:40 p.m. the complainant and his friends left the liquor bar and started for their respective homes. When his 2 friends left him, the complainant was alone proceeding on the road. That time, he was hit on his head by stump like wooden bamboo. The impact was grave and due to which the complainant shouted for help. By that time, his two friends who had just left him, rushed to the spot and found that the respondent/accused had given blow on the head of the complainant just above the eyebrow. The assault was also on the right hand and right leg. After the assault, present respondent/accused ran away from the spot. The complainant was removed to the hospital by his two friends and through them the identity of the present respondent/accused was revealed and the complainant knew that the present respondent/accused assaulted him by means of a cricket stump and that leaving the said stump on the spot the respondent had ran away. Accordingly on 1.6.2009, first information report was lodged with Chembur police station. During the investigation, initially the offence was registered for Section 326 of Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 202 of 2009. Present respondent was arrested. He preferred first application for bail bearing Bail Application No.1223 of 2009. Said bail application was rejected on the ground that the investigation was in progress. The victim/complainant was still in hospital and reportedly he had lost the vision of one eye due to the assault and also suffered the fracture. By making these observations, the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay rejected the bail at that juncture vide order dated 17.6.2009. Thereafter still during pendency of the investigation, another Bail Application No.1309 of 2009 was filed before the same Additional Sessions Judge and it was disposed of vide order dated 1st July, 2009 granting bail to the present respondent in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with directions to attend the concerned police station once a week during 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet. This is the order which is impugned in both the present applications for cancellation of bail. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the orig.complainant brought to the notice of the Court that during the investigation steps were taken by the investigating agency to apply the provisions of the penal Section 307 instead of Section 326 of IPC considering the gravity of the injury and the part of the head on which the assault was inflicted by means of a cricket stump. It is also argued and brought to the notice of the Court that a detailed report was filed by the concerned police station dated 10.6.2009 objecting the first bail application. Virtually similar such report was filed by the police prior to the order on the second bail application. However, with specific mention that the injured is discharged from the hospital. Vide said reply, objection was raised for the grant of bail. However, inspite of such written submission, further argued, the investigating officer gave no objection for grant of bail which was second time filed by the respondent/accused. This conduct on the part of the investigating officer has been deprecated by the complainant. Moreover the State has also filed the application for cancellation of bail on the ground that just within a span of about 13 days, there was no much changed circumstances, however, the same Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay allowed the bail application when the investigation was still continuing. Counter to the above arguments, it is vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate Shri Vaidya for the respondent that the investigation was virtually over and infact the victim was already discharged from the hospital and there was nothing brought before the Court as to any steps being taken by the investigating agency for application of Section 307 of IPC under the circumstances of the case. It is also vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent that there is nothing perverse in the said order passed, in as much as, legal requirement to quash the same and take the respondent in the custody during pendency of the trial. Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent to 6 the ratios propounded by the following authorities : [i] (1984) 1 Supreme Court Cases 284 Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Vs. State of Gujarat [ii] AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1 Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra. [iii] (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 368 Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed Vs. Mehmood Hussain and Another. [iv] 2009 Cri.L.J. 4290 Savitri Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Considering the ratios and the parameters required to be considered in order to undone the order of grant of bail, it is to be seen under the specific circumstances of the present matter whether the order of grant of bail is of such a perverse nature so that it is required to be undone and whether there is a legal necessity to put the respondent in custody during the trial, still if it is considered that the matter is punishable under Section 307 of IPC and when the chargesheet is already filed and that after framing of the charge the matter can be expeditiously taken for recording of the evidence. In order to answer the above point, the wordings of the impugned order, appearing in paragraph Nos.3 & 4 are reproduced for ready reference, as under : "3. The I.O. is present. He has no objection to grant bail to the applicant accused. The investigation is almost over. The victim has been discharged from the hospital. There is a history of dispute between the family of the complainant and the applicant/accused. The applicant has been behind the bars for about a month. It would take time for trial of the case. Pretrial detention is, in the circumstances, unwarranted. The application is, therefore, allowed." After ascertaining the above factual position and reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and considering the release of the respondent since July, 2009, it cannot be said that the circumstances do warrant arrest of the accused and send him in custody till conclusion of the trial still considering that he is to face the charge punishable under Section 307 of IPC. This is more so when according to the learned APP for the State, the process of applying Section 307 instead of Section 326 of IPC started sometime by end of September, 2009 i.e. much after passing of the impugned order. In view of the above, there is nothing to reverse the impugned order of grant of bail. However, certain directions can be given to the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the order: :: O R D E R :: [i] Both Criminal Application Nos.3167/2009 & 4542/2009 stand rejected. [ii] Direction are given to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter to dispose of the matter as early as possible. [iii] The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by any observations made in the present order so far as merits of the case are concerned and shall deal with the matter according to law. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7887 OF 2024 Vishwas S/o Babasaheb Deshmukh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Social Justice And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ DATE : 4th March, 2025 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 05/03/2025. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7887 OF 2024 Vishwas S/o Babasaheb Deshmukh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Social Justice And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. S. R. Barlinge (appeared through VC) a/w Mr. Deepak Pote for Petitioner Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondents-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ DATE : 5th March, 2025 P.C. : S. O. to 06/03/2025 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: TRUPTI SADANAND signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.03.13 17:38:25 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7887 OF 2024 Vishwas s/o. Babasaheb Deshmukh & Ors. … Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.Ketan Pote (through VC) h/f. Mr.Deepak Pote for the Petitioners. Mr.P.P.Kakde, Addl.GP with Mr.A.C.Bhadang, AGP for the Respondent -State. Mr.Rajiv More, Law Officer is present. Mr.Prashant Gaikwad, Medical Social Worker is present. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 6TH MARCH, 2025 P.C. :- The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (A), (B) and (C), as under : "A] By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the petitioners for absorption in any other aided School meant for physically challenged students. B] By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to pay salary of the petitioners for a period from 2017 till the date of their absorption. C] Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the petitioners absorption as per their seniority in the waiting list maintained by respondent No. 2 without waiting for the list to be submitted by respondent No. 4 Management". The learned Addl.GP submits, on instructions, that an Appeal was filed by Respondent No.4 Management, challenging the decision of the Government to close down the said Institution. The said Appeal was allowed on 25th January, 2018. However, thereafter, the Management has not started the said Institution. Therefore, these Petitioners are still in the lurch. We are informed that the proposals of these Petitioners, for absorption, have been forwarded by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.2. The learned Addl.GP submits that the said proposals could not be acted upon since the department requires the service books along with the appointment orders of these Petitioners and the Institution is closed. If the Petitioners tender self attested copies of the service books along with their appointment orders, Respondent No.2 would consider the same and take a decision as regards the absorption of these Petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the Petitioners should cooperate. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits, on instructions, that the Petitioners are willing to cooperate. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off with the following directions : (a) The Petitioners shall prepare additional copies of their service books along with their appointment orders and tender them to Respondent no. 2; (b) Depending upon the availability of posts on which these Petitioners would be eligible, the appropriate Authority would start issuing orders of absorption of these Petitioners and similarly situated employees who have not approached the Court, strictly as per their seniority list; 3 of 4 (c) Insofar as the payment of salary to a surplus teacher is concerned, in the light of the Government Resolution dated 15th March, 2024, we direct the concerned Authorities to ensure that the said Government Resolution is scrupulously followed and the surplus teachers be paid their due amounts, within a period of 60 days, and to be paid until they are absorbed. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)