Bombay High Court
Anil Vasantrao Padmawar vs The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur Throuh ... on 21 October, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
301-wp-3247-20.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3247 OF 2020
( Ku. Rekha Suryaban Sindikar Vs.State of Maharashtra and another)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3305 OF 2020
( Mahesh S/o Govindram Bachwani Vs.State of Maharashtra and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3321 OF 2020
( The Bhandara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhandara Vs. Shalikram Mahadeoji Kularkar
and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3369 OF 2020
( Piyusha D/o Ashok Bhujade Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, and
others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3485 OF 2020
( Dr. Dyaneshwar Shamrao Kadhao Vs. Through President, Laxmi Shikshan Sanstha and
Krida Mandal Kesalwada (Wagh), Bhandara and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3492 OF 2020
( Santosh S/o Sukhdeo Metkar Vs. Sub Divisional Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub Division,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati and another )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3507 OF 2020
( M/s Peak Realty, Nagpur Vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3543 OF 2020
( Dilip Gopinath Naitam Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3649 OF 2020
( Ganesh Shrirang Paighon and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3701 OF 2020
( Rashtrya Kamgar Education Society, Nagpur and others Vs. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3731 OF 2020
( M/s Tirupati Construction Vs. The Employees State Insurance Corporation )
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:21:52 :::
301-wp-3247-20.odt
2/6
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3757 OF 2020
( M/s Rashtriya Kamgar Education Society, Nagpur Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3817 OF 2020
( Santosh Bhimrao Deshmukh Vs. Deputy Director, Land Record, Amravati and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3819 OF 2020
( Dr. Ashwinkumar S/o Anantrao Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4095 OF 2020
( Akansha Gopal Khakra Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4098 OF 2020
( Nitesh Prakash Nagde and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2020
( Akhilesh S/o Charansingh Yadav Vs. The Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashitriya
Vishwavidyalaya and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4175 OF 2020
( D.P. Jain and Company Infrastructure Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Mumbai and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 335 OF 2021
( Ku. Jayashri D/o Mahadeorao Lokhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 813 OF 2021
( Ashok Ganpatrao Sawarkar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2021
( Anil Vasantrao Padmawar Vs. The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and another )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2021
( Ravindra Anandrao Choudhari Vs. The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and another )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 905 OF 2021
( Pragati Adiwasi Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Buldhana Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:21:52 :::
301-wp-3247-20.odt
3/6
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1240 OF 2021
( The Life Light Education Society, Karajgaon and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1471 OF 2021
( Dr. Sunil M. Thakurwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1511 OF 2021
( Yavatmal District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Yavatmal and others Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others )
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 21st OCTOBER, 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.
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:21:52 :::301-wp-3247-20.odt 4/6
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 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, ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:21:52 ::: 301-wp-3247-20.odt 5/6 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 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.
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:21:52 :::301-wp-3247-20.odt 6/6
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
sknair
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:21:52 :::