Bombay High Court
Barun Kumar Manmohan Choudhary And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 21 October, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
351-wp-2740-21.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2740 OF 2021
( Smt. Shardadevi Wd/o Ganeshprasad Jaiswal and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2744 OF 2021
( Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Yusuf, Friends Welfare Society, Amravati and another Vs. Haji Sayyed
Niyaz Ali Sayyed Karamat Ali )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2899 OF 2021
( Manisha D/o Pundalikrao Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2925 OF 2021
( Sachin S/o Anand Mukewar Vs. The Collector, Nagpur and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2940 OF 2021
( Laxman Sitaram Idde Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2966 OF 2021
( Shahjahan Khan S/o Wahidulla Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2998 OF 2021
( Nitin S/o Keshav Lende Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3023 OF 2021
( Em Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur Vs. The Maharashtra State Power Generation Company
Ltd., and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3038 OF 2021
( Kumar Cargo Solution Vs. Chairman -cum- Managing Director, Western Coal Limited,
Nagpur and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3045 OF 2021
( Smt. Manda Wd/o Umrao Badge Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation and another )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3084 OF 2021
( Vedprakash S/o Kamalnarayan Jaiswal Vs. The Tahsildar, Hingna )
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:29:25 :::
351-wp-2740-21.odt
2/6
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3156 OF 2021
( Jayant S/o Hirji Gosar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3160 OF 2021
( Hemant Jagannath Vidwansa Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3162 OF 2021
( Macchindranath Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Regional Deputy Commissioner of
Fisheries, Amravati )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3225 OF 2021
( Rakesh S/o Chhaganlal Thakre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3254 OF 2021
( Narendra Annaji Vaidya and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3269 OF 2021
( Rushikesh Madhukar Chavan Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3270 OF 2021
( Hitesh S/o Ashok Potle Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3273 OF 2021
( Mohammad Kabir Mansoor Vs. Union of India, New Delhi and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3284 OF 2021
( Rajendra Shriram Meshram and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3293 OF 2021
( Madan Mulchand Purohit and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3298 OF 2021
( Prabhakar Sadashiv Dhawas Vs. Western Coalfields Limited, Chandrapur and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3338 OF 2021
( Pranita Wd/o Rohit Dhakate Vs. The Union of India and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3344 OF 2021
( Anjali D/o Dashrath Chauhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:29:25 :::
351-wp-2740-21.odt
3/6
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3346 OF 2021
( Barun Kumar Manmohan Choudhary 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.
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 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:29:25 ::: 351-wp-2740-21.odt 4/6 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 in their right spirit and decide to withdraw or waive the office objections in that regard.
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:29:25 :::351-wp-2740-21.odt 5/6
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 insignificant and ought not to have been taken, be placed before Registrar (Judicial) for his appropriate consideration and passing of the suitable order, ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:29:25 ::: 351-wp-2740-21.odt 6/6 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 04:29:25 :::