Bombay High Court
Ahfaz Ahmed Iftekhar Ahmed Siddiqui vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 21 October, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 W.P.No.4485.2019+24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4485 OF 2019
Devashish S/o Ashok Narnaware Vs. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur and Anr.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4587 OF 2019
Rakesh S/o Ashok Bhongade Vs. The Education Officer, (Secondary), Z.P.
Bhandara and Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4615 OF 2019
Vijayalaxmi Organic Composed & Agro, Amravati Vs. The Collector, Amravati &
Anr.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4873 OF 2019
Shri Prakash S/o Deorao Chafle, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4892 OF 2019
Sumedh Siddharth Tenpe, Vs. Yashwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, Wardha &
Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4893 OF 2019
Sau. Chandramala W/o Fattuji Khobragade, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4961 OF 2019
Bhartiya Vikas Bahu-uddeshiya Shikshan & Prashikshan Sanstha, Vs. State of
Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4999 OF 2019
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Vs. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Akola & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5000 OF 2019
Satish Bhimrao Mante Vs. Education Officer (Secondary) Z.P. Buldhana & Ors.,
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:23:33 :::
2 W.P.No.4485.2019+24
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5080 OF 2019
Ku. Shalini D/o Manohar Babulkar, Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur &
Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5090 OF 2019
Auto Hangar (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5102 OF 2019
Shri Shitala Devi Mandir, Nagpur, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5216 OF 2019
Smt. Rajeshree Vijaykumar Chatur, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5250 OF 2019
Wardha Zilla Macchimar Sahakari Sangh, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5367 OF 2019
Dr. Vilas S/o Gowardhan Petkar, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5388 OF 2019
Shri Sandip S/o Subhashrao Koshatwar, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5089 OF 2019
Arun S/o Bhaskarrao Gundawar & Ors., Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5415 OF 2019
Tarun S/o Rajkumar Mallani, Vs. State of Mah. & Anr.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5453 OF 2019
Irshad Mustaq Sayyad S/o Mustaq Jabbar Ali, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5581 OF 2019
Akash S/o Surendra Alset, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:23:33 :::
3 W.P.No.4485.2019+24
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5586 OF 2019
Ahfaz Ahmed Iftekhar Ahmed Siddiqui, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5879 OF 2019
Dilip Bajirao Zungare, Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6004 OF 2019
Yashwant Motiramji Mate, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6024 OF 2019
M/s Aakar Construction, Bhandara, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 OF 2019
New Ramdaspeth Kachipura Nagarik Mandal, Nagpur, Vs. Nagpur Municipal
Corporation & Anr.,
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6156 OF 2019
Swastik S/o Suresh Nangliya, Vs. The Municipal Council, Chandur Bazar &
Ors.,
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 958 OF 2019
Gajanan Sudhakarrao Raut, Vs. The Municipal Council, Chandur Bazar & Ors.,
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6594 OF 2018
Mohd. Ilyas Ahmad S/o Abdul Kabeer, Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 21.10.2021 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:23:33 ::: 4 W.P.No.4485.2019+24
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 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 04:23:33 ::: 5 W.P.No.4485.2019+244. 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 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 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:23:33 ::: 6 W.P.No.4485.2019+24 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
Kirtak
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:23:33 :::