Bombay High Court
Siddhant S/O Uddhavrao Wankhede Thr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary ... on 21 October, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
326-wp-1772-21.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1772 OF 2021
( Prakash Rambhau Ranbaware Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Enquiry), Amravati and
others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1900 OF 2021
( M/s Balaji Travels, Gondia Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd., Chandrapur and another )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1906 OF 2021
( Gurudeo Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Amravati Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1911 OF 2021
( Vivek S/o Babarao Thakre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1940 OF 2021
( Aditya Construction Company Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1943 OF 2021
( Sultan S/o Hasan Saudagar Vs. Sant Gadge Baba, Amravati and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1968 OF 2021
( Dinesh Govindrao Tokase Vs. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati and
others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2098 OF 2021
(Dr. Ambadas Shamrao Ghule Vs. State of Maharashtra (Education Department) and
others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2120 OF 2021
(Eknath Govinda Barde and another Vs. Western Coal Fields Ltd., Nagpur and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2198 OF 2021
(Siddhant S/o Uddhavrao Wankhede Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2199 OF 2021
(Iftekhar Ahmad Noor Ahmad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2205 OF 2021
(Vaishnavi D/o Kishor Sonparote Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate and others )
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:24:53 :::
326-wp-1772-21.odt
2/6
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2246 OF 2021
( Indian Medical Association, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2248 OF 2021
( Laxman Chirkutrao Patil and others Vs. The Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust and
others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2274 OF 2021
( Vidarbha Kho-Kho Association, Nagpur Vs. Kho Kho Federation of India, New Delhi and
others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2275 OF 2021
( Ramesh Nimbaji Kalwe Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2293 OF 2021
( Central India Veneers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2343 OF 2021
( Gajanan Dharmaji Rakhade and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2021
( Ku. Priti D/o Bhikanrao Kiratkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2491 OF 2021
( Santosh Laxmanrao Ingole Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2507 OF 2021
( Shankar S/o Amruta Dalvi and another Vs. State Information Commissioner, Amravati and
others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2513 OF 2021
( M/s Shruti Promoters, Nagpur Vs. The Collector, Nagpur and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2597 OF 2021
( Mohd. Mobin S/o Mohd. Mosin @ Sayyad Mohd. Mobin Quazi and others Vs. Hajrat Baba
Tajuddin Trust, Nagpur and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2642 OF 2021
( Shailesh S/o Vilasprasad Tiwari Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:24:53 :::
326-wp-1772-21.odt
3/6
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2690 OF 2021
( Bhaskar S/o Beniram Nagdive Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Nagpur )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5001 OF 2018
( Ms. Nilini D/o Ramdas Dahat Vs. The Union Minister, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, New Delhi 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.
3. It is submitted that there are some cases in which an impression is gathered that office has taken ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:24:53 ::: 326-wp-1772-21.odt 4/6 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, therefore, we would direct the Registrar (Judicial) to consider such exceptions taken to the office objections ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:24:53 ::: 326-wp-1772-21.odt 5/6 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.
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 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:24:53 ::: 326-wp-1772-21.odt 6/6 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 04:24:53 :::