Bombay High Court
Sau Rita Sureshrao Paithankar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 October, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
101to125wp6695.19+ors..odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6695 OF 2019
(Apang Jeevan Vikas Sanstha, Amravati & anr. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6696 OF 2019
(Pranav Gajanan Raje Vs. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Risod & anr.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6697 OF 2019
(Mr. Nagman Uzzama Abdul Sattar Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6698 OF 2019
(Madan s/o Lahanu Khadse Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6719 OF 2019
(Mr. Namdev Hanjari Rathod & anr. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6721 OF 2019
(Vd. Digambar Sitaramji Ninghot & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6722 OF 2019
(Vaidya Baburao Raibhanji Ninghot & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6723 OF 2019
(Varadkumar Uttamrao Kankale & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6724 OF 2019
(Dr. Dasharath Baliram Jadhao & anr. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6725 OF 2019
(Naik Shikshan Sanstha, Mokh & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6750 OF 2019
(Raghunandan Subhash Shinde & anr. Vs. Vice President, S.T. Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6751 OF 2019
(Mahadev Sakharam Gawande Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Amravati & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6752 OF 2019
(M/s. T.M. Enterprises, Nagpur Vs. Union of India & ors.)
AND
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:34:59 :::
101to125wp6695.19+ors..odt 2
WRIT PETITION NO. 6768 OF 2019
(Janardan s/o Gulabrao Moon Vs. Mah. State Election Commission, Mumbai & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6774 OF 2019
(Dr. Lalchand Pandhariji Dalal Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6782 OF 2019
(Rajendraprasad Maujilal Bhilavekar Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6785 OF 2019
(Ashalesha D/o Sunil Gujar & anr. Vs. Divisional Caste Verification and Scrutiny Committee
No.2, Amravati Division, Akola & anr.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6786 OF 2019
(Abdul Rafique Abdul Majid Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6787 OF 2019
(Neha Purushottam Singh Vs. The Central Board of Secondary Education & anr.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6789 OF 2019
(Sou. Anita Shriniwas Goud Balagoni Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6792 OF 2019
(Shri Anandrao Maroti Kakade Vs. The Chairman cum Managing Director, WCL, Nagpur & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6795 OF 2019
(Umakant Kawaduji Bokade Vs. The Union of India & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6796 OF 2019
(Social Workers Organization & ors. Vs. The State of Mah. & anr.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6805 OF 2019
(Sau. Rita Sureshrao Paithankar Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6868 OF 2019
(Drushti Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6875 OF 2019
(Shri Narendrakumar S. Bundele Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6876 OF 2019
(Murlidhar s/o Pandurang Dandekar Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:34:59 :::
101to125wp6695.19+ors..odt 3
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 21, 2021
1. Today there is a big bunch of cases, 400 cases, which have been grouped together under the category of passing of suitable orders following non removal of office objections and accordingly, this bunch of petitions has been listed on board today for passing necessary orders.
2. Shri Bhanudas Kulkarni, learned Advocate and Shri Firdos Mirza, learned Advocate representing the Bar have made few submissions as well as suggestions.
3. It is submitted that there are some cases in which an impression is gathered that office has taken objections just for the sake of taking of them although, if looked at them minutely, one would be convinced that there are no objections at all and, therefore, it would be unjust on the part of this Court to pass a conditional order like removal of the office objections, failing which dismissal will occur, which would be causing great injustice to the parties. In order to support the submission, one case was pointed out to this Court wherein it was seen that the page in respect of which the office objection was taken, was clear and legible, but for the rubber stamp which appears at the ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:34:59 ::: 101to125wp6695.19+ors..odt 4 top of the page and this rubber stamp though not legible, is not required to be considered when any reference is to be made to this page or any reliance is to be placed upon this page. It is further submitted that if an opportunity is given to the Bar to explain these facts to the office, perhaps, some of the objections which have been presently taken, would be withdrawn by the office.
4. On going through the page to which our attention was drawn, we find ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid submission. The office objection taken as regards this page appears to be unnecessary and, therefore, we would direct the Registrar (Judicial) to consider such exceptions taken to the office objections in their right spirit and decide to withdraw or waive the office objections in that regard.
5. It is suggested that if liberty is granted to the Bar to convince the office regarding insignificance or non existence of what is considered by the office to be an objectionable fact, many of the problems would be sorted out and no injustice would be caused to the parties. We cannot but agree more. At the same time, we would like to emphasise here that in many cases the objections taken are indeed valid and, therefore, it would be necessary for the parties to remove these office objections as ultimately, removing of the office ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:34:59 ::: 101to125wp6695.19+ors..odt 5 objections only would lead to effective administration of justice in every case. Therefore, in those cases where the office objections are validly taken and they are considered to be so upon careful thinking by the parties or their learned Advocates, every effort for removal of such office objections must be made and we are sure that this will be done by the parties, members of the Bar and the Registry, acting in collaboration with each other.
6. Accordingly, we direct that all those cases wherein the parties and their learned Advocates are of the opinion that all the office objections or any of them are insignificant and ought not to have been taken, be placed before Registrar (Judicial) for his appropriate consideration and passing of the suitable order, including withdrawal of the office objections, if he is convinced about the same. This shall be done within next four weeks.
7. As regards the remaining cases wherein the parties and learned Advocates are convinced that the office objections are validly taken, all the office objections shall be removed within six weeks from the date of the order.
JUDGE JUDGE
*DB
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:34:59 :::