Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dr S Venu vs Bio Autonomous Institutes on 11 September, 2025
1
OA No.89/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.89/2015
Dated this Thursday the 11th day of September, 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Dr. S. Venu, Son of V. M. Sasidharan (Late),
Resident of Qrt. No. D1, Pondicherry University
Campus, Brookshabad, Port Blair, Andaman &
Nicobar Islands.
Working as Professor in Pondicherry Central
University, Add.: Pondicherry University Campus,
Brookshabad, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
... Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. Jennifer Michael i/b
Shri S.S. Sinha)
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
VERSUS
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
1. Union of India, through the Secretary
Ministry of Science and Technology having address at
Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road,
New Delhi-110016.
2. The National Institute of Oceanography,
A Unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research of the Ministry of Science & Technology,
Government of India, through its Director,
having its head office at Dona Paula, 403 004, Goa, India.
3. Abhay Fulke Son of Balaji Fulke, an adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Presently employed as Scientist-B with the National
Institute of Oceanography (Respondent No.1) and
having its office at Dona Paula, 403 004, Goa, India.
2
OA No.89/2015
... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri K.P. Anilkumar &
Shri A.R. Saple - R3)
Order Reserved on : 07th August, 2025.
Pronounced on: 11th September, 2025.
ORDER
Per: Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"8.a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the Order dated 4th August 2014 bearing No. 7/84/2014-E:Il passed by Mr. R. S. Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Malge, the Administrative Officer of the Respondent No.2 provisionally selecting and appointing the Respondent No.3 to the post of "Scientist" having Post Code S-402 under the Category of "Scheduled Tribe" advertised vide Advertisement No. REC- 01/2013 of the Respondent No.2;
8.b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to award the post of "Scientist" having Post Code S- 402 under the Category of "Scheduled Tribe"
advertised vide Advertisement No. REC-01/2013 of the Respondent No.2 to the Applicant as the only eligible applicant for the said post;
8.c) For costs;
8.d) For such other and further reliefs as this 3 OA No.89/2015 Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The applicant has challenged the appointment of Respondent No.3 to the post of Scientist in the office of Respondent No.2. The applicant's grounds of challenge, in brief, are that; (I) Respondent No.3 does not have minimum/essential qualification set out in the Advertisement for the said post and, therefore, should not have been selected.
(II) That since there were only two applicants for the said post and Respondent No.3 was not qualified, the post ought to have Deepti Ganesh Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document been given to the applicant.
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 (III) The presence of the Ph.D. Supervisor of the Respondent No.3, Dr. Tapan Chakrabarti, on the Interview Panel had created a bias in favour of Respondent No.3 and the process of recruitment/selection was vitiated.
3. In support of her claim, the applicant relied on the Notification issued with respect to Post Code: S402. It is her submission that the essential qualification required for the post was ME/M.Tech/PhD (Science/Engineering) on a topic related to any 4 OA No.89/2015 branch of Oceanography, was not possessed by Respondent No.3, who had done M.Sc. in Microbiology on the topic "studies on CO2 sequestration and biodiesel precursor(s) profiling using microalgae". It is the contention of the applicant that Ph.D is in "fresh water algae" and, therefore, does not relate to ocean in any manner and hence cannot be related to oceanography, which is the field of study in National Institute of Oceanography and also the essential requirement in the Notification. It is also contended that the Ph.D is in the stream of Microbiology, which is not the same as Oceanography.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDeepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4. It is also contended by the applicant that the Ph.D Supervisor of Respondent No.3, Dr. Tapan Chakrabarti was on the Interview Panel, which is a clear indication of bias because had the decision been a tie, then Tapan Chakrabarti would have a casting/deciding vote. It is also contended that the information and documents pertaining to the constitution of the Interview Panel/Selection Committee was in the possession of respondents and it should have been produced along with all relevant material 5 OA No.89/2015 to support the contentions in the affidavit-in-reply that the decision to appoint Respondent No.3 was unanimous. However, the respondent being in possession and not producing the same leads to the adverse inference that if produced, such evidence would be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. For this, the applicant also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors, AIR 1967 SC 1413 dated 19th April, 1968 and Moreshwar Shankar Phatak & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 127 dated 20th December, 2002 to state that even if the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' burden of proof does not lie on a party, the Court may draw an Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 adverse inference if the party withholds important documents in its possession which can throw light on the facts at issue.
5. After notice, respondents have filed their reply and contested the claim of the applicant. The Respondents have stated that the applicant in the OA and on basis of the documents filed separately has not been able to establish that Respondent No.3 was not qualified for the post of Scientist or that there was bias in the 6 OA No.89/2015 selection. It is submitted by the respondents that Ph.D topic of Respondent No.3 related to Oceanography and Environmental Science as Micro Algae production from algal biomass is one of the promising resources for green house gas reduction which relates directly to Environmental Science and Oceanography. It was explained by the respondents that the Advertisement mentions essential qualification as ME/M.Tech/PhD (Science/Engineering) on any topic related to any branch of Oceanography and the topic related to Environmental Science i.e. Oceanography and that it would be wrong on the part of the applicant to state that Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Respondent No.3 was not qualified.
6. It was further explained that the Interview Committee consists of seven eminent Scientists. This Committee is constituted by the Chairman, Recruitment & Assessment Board, CSIR. It was also submitted that the decision made by the Interview Committee was a unanimous decision. It is also argued that there is no rule which bar inclusion of a research guide in the Interview Committee. It was also submitted that there is no allegation of mala 7 OA No.89/2015 fide against the Committee and there is no specific detail as to how the presence of Dr. Tapan Chakrabarti influenced the selection.
7. It was also submitted that the Director of the Institute or any other authority has no say in the constitution of the Selection Committee. The respondents explained the process followed in the selection - that there is a Screening Committee and there is a Selection (Interview) Committee. The Screening Committee constituted by the Director screens the application received and consists of one Scientist from sister Lab of CSIR, one Scientist from the Lab/HQ of CSIR and Director or his nominee. Representative Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 of SC/ST is also invariably part of the Screening Committee. As per the Advertisement, the Screening Committee would adopt its own criteria for short-listing of candidates. The Selection Committee adopted the criteria of Essential qualification /Desirable qualification to short-list the candidates. The recommendations of the Screening Committee, approved by the Director of the Institute are sent to the Recruitment and Assessment Board in Delhi for approval. CSIR RAB, Delhi is an 8 OA No.89/2015 independent body constituted by the Governing Body of CSIR. CSIR RAB, Delhi after screening and being satisfied with the criteria adopted for short-listing of the candidates as well as fulfillment of the eligibility of candidates, constitutes the Selection Committee. It was submitted that none of the persons in the Screening Committee were part of the Selection Committee which goes to show the neutrality of the process.
8. It is submitted that the Selection Committee only gives recommendations which does not attain finality until a detailed examination is carried out by RAB independently prior to its Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 endorsement by the Chairperson, CISR.
9. It was argued that the decision of the Interview Board was unanimous and one individual expert cannot vitiate the independence of all others. It was also argued that the existence of CSIR - RAB as an independent level of Check, neutrality of the process and selection remains based solely on merits. It was argued that the challenge by the applicant to the selection by the experts cannot be upheld as the settled principle of law is that 9 OA No.89/2015 selection made by an Expert Committee cannot be challenged before the judicial forum as it is the Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. It was further argued that having been a 'Guide' to a candidate does not disqualify that member from being part of Interview Committee, nor can an automatic allegation of bias be construed in such a case. In this context, the respondents have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, Etc Vs. B.S. Mahajan, Etc, in Civil Appeal Nos.3507-10 of 1989 dated 6th December, 1989 and Bajaj Hindustan Limited Vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited & Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 640 dated 29th November, 2010. Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 submitted that the topic of Respondent No.3 related to Environmental Science which was within the essential qualification as appearing in the notification. It was also submitted that Respondent No.3 had obtained 70 marks whereas the applicant has secured only 55 marks and therefore, the selection of Respondent No.3 was appropriate.
10OA No.89/2015
11. We have heard the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and have perused the pleadings and documents on record.
12. During the course of proceedings, the applicant had sought time to produce literature on the topic that Microbiology does not have any relationship with Oceanography. The Bench had allowed both the sides to place such literature in support of their case. The respondents in pursuance of the said order had appointed a one-man Committee consisting of Dr. Baban Ingole, Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Retired Scientist. On 16th November, 2023, the respondents formed 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 a Committee of Prof. R. Mohanraju - Head of Department of Ocean Studies & Marine Biology, Pondicherry Central University, Port Blair Campus and Dr. Manguesh Gauns, Senior Principal Scientist, Biological Oceanography Department, CSIR - National Institute of Oceanography, Goa to seek information on whether "Studies on CO2 sequestration and biodiesel precursor(s) profiling using microalgae" is related to Marine Oceanography or not. The 11 OA No.89/2015 said Committee of experts vide their letter dated 16th January, 2024 gave the following report:
" 16th January, 2024 ...Concerning CSIR-NIOs OM dated 16th November, 2023, the expert's panel met and discussed whether the subject 'Studies on CO2 sequestration and biodiesel precursor(s) profiling using microalgae is related to Marine Oceanography or not.
Unanimously, the expert's opinion is that the above subject applied to Marine oceanography."
The original records of the Selection were also produced for inspection by the Bench.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
13. The two issues raised by the applicant are;
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
(i) Respondent No.3 was selected through the recruitment process despite not possessing the essential qualifications prescribed for the post.
(ii) That the interview panel had as its Member Dr. Tapan Chakrabarti, who was the guide of Respondent No.3 and, therefore, the applicant pleads bias in the selection.
14. The essential qualification for the post is reproduced below for ready reference:
12OA No.89/2015
"Essential Qualification:
ME/M.Tech/PhD(Science/Engineering) on a topic related to any branch of Oceanography (Marine Physics, Marine Geology & Geophysics, Marine Chemistry, Marine Biology, Marine Instrumentation, Environmental Sciences and Ocean Engineering) PhD submitted in these subjects may also be considered".
From the same, it can be observed that what was required was that the topic of Ph.D should be related to any branch of Oceanography. This has further been elaborated in the bracket, wherein the subject matter is qualified by the word 'Marine' - Marine Physics, Marine Geology & Geophysics, Marine Chemistry, Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Marine Biology, Marine Instrumentation. However, the subject Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 matter "Environmental Sciences" is not qualified by the word 'Marine'. For this reason alone, it can be held that Respondent No.3 was eligible as his topic was clearly on Environmental Science.
We further observe that whether it was the one-man Committee comprising Dr. Baban Ingole or the two-member Committee consisting of Prof. R. Mohanraju and Dr. Manguesh Gauns) both opined that the Ph.D topic of Respondent No.3 was related to Oceanography. These members were experts in the field 13 OA No.89/2015 of Oceanography. It is further observed that a Screening Committee consisting of scientific experts was formed to short-list the candidates. These experts, short-listed Respondent No.3 after considering his qualifications. Their recommendation was sent for final approval to the CSIR-RAB, Delhi which again screened the candidates, and only after being satisfied, recommended them to the Selection Committee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmed Rather Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 held that it is for the employer to consider what functionality of qualification and content of course of studies would lead to the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 acquisition of an eligible qualification and that such matters must be left to educationists. It has been held in several decisions that equivalence of qualifications is a matter best left to the employer or to subject experts. In the case of the applicant, the experts on the subjects held that Respondent No.3 possessed the essential qualifications. Therefore, no benefit arises to the applicant from this ground.14 OA No.89/2015
15. The second issue which has been raised by the applicant is presence of bias in the Selection Committee due to the presence of Ph.D guide of Respondent No.3. In this regard, it is observed that the Selection Committee consisted of seven persons and Dr. Tapan Chakrabarti (Guide) was just one of the members of the Committee. The decision of the Selection Committee was unanimous. It is also seen that the applicant has secured less marks than Respondent No.3. Further, it has not been shown by the applicant as to what role Dr. Tapan Chakrabarti played in the selection process in favour of Respondent No.3. In a similar Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their decision in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, Etc Vs. B.S. Mahajan, Etc, in Civil Appeal Nos.3507-10 of 1989 (supra) has held that there is no bar on guides being member of the Selection Committee. It has further observed on the point of bias that:
"...10. ............ As an aside of the very same reason, the High Court has also found the presence of the sixth respondent on the Committee as vitiating the selection, and the only reason given by the High Court in that behalf is as follows :15 OA No.89/2015
"....In this background if we consider the reply of sixth respondent, Shri Shyamrao S. Kadam, the member of the Selection Committee were of the opinion that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the members of the Selection Committee had shown favour to the 7th respondent cannot be said to be without any substance".
There is no discussion or finding given by the High Court on the alleged role played by the 6th respondent. We are therefore at a loss to know in what manner the 6th respondent had influenced the decision of the Selection Committee. Probably the Court had nothing further to say with regard to the alleged "Role" of the 6th respondent. We therefore refrain from saying anything more on the subject."
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
16. In view of the said observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that mere presence of a guide does not vitiate the process or create the presumption of a bias. The role played by the guide has to be elaborated to establish the bias. This has not been done by the applicant. The respondents, on the other hand, have shown that the decision of the Selection Committee was unanimous, a fact which is borne by the record and could not be controverted by the applicant.
16OA No.89/2015
17. We, therefore, find no fault with the recruitment process, either on the point of essential qualification of the selected candidate or on the presumption of bias raised by the applicant. The Original Application is devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (A) Member (J)
dm.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.09.17 15:36:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0