Bombay High Court
Antoyadaya Swayam Rojgar Seva Sahakari ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Ministry Of ... on 21 October, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
Sr. No.276 to 300.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2533 OF 2020
(Smt. Nisha W/o Ramesh Parte Vs. Zilla Parishad, through its Chief Executive Officer,
Nagpur)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2619 OF 2020
(Kum. Shubhangi D/o Bhaskarrao Jarurkar Now Sau. Shubhangi W/o Prashant Bhalerao Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare And Social
Justice Department)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2020
(Subhash S/o Charandasji Karunik Vs. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, thr. Chief Executive Officer
and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2643 OF 2020
(Prashant S/o Prakashrao Digraskar Vs. State Information Commissioner, Amravati Division,
Amravati and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2676 OF 2020
(Smt. Panchsheela W/o Lekhraj Meshram Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2678 OF 2020
(Bhushan S/o Sudamrao Ekonkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Department of Education, Mumbai)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2733 OF 2020
(Lotus Court Condominium Society, Nagpur thr. Manager Vs. Municipal Commissioner,
N.M.C. Nagpur and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2736 OF 2020
(Ghanshyam S/o Tanuji Nagpure and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Principal
Secretary, Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2765 OF 2020
(Anurag S/o Dattaraj Wankhade Vs. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
thr. its Vice Chairman Jt. Commissioner)
AND
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:41:09 :::
Sr. No.276 to 300.odt
2/6
WRIT PETITION NO. 2801 OF 2020
(Dr. Satish Himmatrao Deshmukh Vs. The Joint Director of Education, Higher Education,
Amravati)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2854 OF 2020
(Reeta W/o Jeetendra Daharwal Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School
Education and Sports Department, Mumbai)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2865 OF 2020
(Union of India, thr. its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi Vs.
Vasant S/o Ramrao Hanwate)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2879 OF 2020
(Bhimrao S/o Dayaram Kohad Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Animal
Husbandry Dairy Development and Fishery Department)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2886 OF 2020
(Akhil Bhartiya Banjara Sena, Buldhana thr. General Secretary Rajesh S/o Fakira Rathod Vs.
State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Welfare, Mumbai)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2908 OF 2020
(Mrs. Ranitai W/o Anil Jaware Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban
Development Department, Mumbai and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2946 OF 2020
(Hardas @ Haridas Ramdas Udasi and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the
Secretary Urban Development Department, Mumbai and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2947 OF 2020
(Hiralal Ramaji Shahare and others Vs. Accountant General, Indian Audit and accounts
Department, Nagpur and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 OF 2020
(Antoyadaya swayam Rojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit thr. Manager Mr. Vijay
Jiwanlal Mogre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3028 OF 2020
(Shri Bharat S/o Maroti Tonchar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Department of Education,
through its Secretary, Mumbai and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3033 OF 2020
(Shri Sandip S/o Kashiram Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Department of School
Education, through its Secretary, Mumbai and others)
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:41:09 :::
Sr. No.276 to 300.odt
3/6
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3148 OF 2020
(M/s G.K. Power thr. its Propr. Rajamma Kunjachan W/o A.K. Kunjachan Vs. The Central
Bank of India, Nagpur thr. Branch Manager, Nagpur)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3151 OF 2020
(Nitin Madanlal Chaudhary, Prop. Saikrupa Stone Cursher, Buldhana Vs. State of
Maharashtra, through its Divisional Commissioner, Co-operative Socieites, Nagpur and
others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3159 OF 2020
(Ahmed Raza S/o Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmed Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Department of Social Justice, Mumbai and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3179 OF 2020
(Hotel Mehfil Inn Pvt. Ltd., thr. Director, Shri Pratik S/o Pravin Mundhada Vs. State of
Maharashtra, thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue and forest, Disaster Management,
Relief and Rehabilitation and others)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3208 OF 2020
(Ramesh S/o Prabhu Rathod Vs. The Collector, Akola)
__________________________________________________________________________
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.
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:41:09 :::Sr. No.276 to 300.odt 4/6
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 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.
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:41:09 :::Sr. No.276 to 300.odt 5/6
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 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 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:41:09 ::: Sr. No.276 to 300.odt 6/6 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
C.L.Dhakate
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:41:09 :::