Bombay High Court
Dinesh Champat Rathod And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:8861-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5903/2024
(1) Shri Dinesh Champat Rathod,
Aged 36 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Jagdamba Mandir, Javal
Balaji Park, Shrirampur, Soot
Girni, Tal.Pusad, District Yavatmal.
(2) Shri Yashwantrao Shankarrao
Chaudhari, Aged about 64 years,
Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Near Udasi
Maharaj Temple, Ward No. 14, Tal.
Pusad, District Yavatmal.
(3) Shri Manohar Vasram Rathod,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o. Jagdamba
Mandir Javal, Shampur, District
Yavatmal.
(4) Shri Amol Madhavrao Fuke,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o. Mou.
Wanarwala, Tal. Pusad, District
Yavatmal.
(5) Shri Mersingh Ramu Rathod,
Aged about 70 years, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o. 87, Hanuman
Temple, Ward No.3, Ashwinipur,
Yavatmal, Maharashtra.
Judgment 2 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt
(6) Sau. Chaya Prashant Deshmukh,
Aged about 52 years, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o. Vivekanand
Colony, Shrirampur, Soot Girni,
Yavatmal.
(7) Shri Santosh Shambhaji Karhale,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Trader,
R/o. Kopra Khurdh, Bhojala,
Yavatmal.
(8) Shri Vijay Radhakisan Bhangade,
Aged about 64 years, Occ. Trader,
R/o. Main Road, Bhangade
Hospital, Balaji Ward, Tal. Pusad,
District Yavatmal.
(9) Shri Ratirao Vithalrao Raut,
Aged about 66 years, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o. Ward No. 1,
Aregaon, District Yavatmal. ....PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
(1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary for Co-
operation, Marketing and Textile
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
(2) The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State Pune, 3rd Floor,
New Secondary Building, Pune -
411001.
Judgment 3 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt
(3) The Deputy District Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, District
Yavatmal.
(4) The Agricultural Produce & Market
Committee, Pusad, Through its
Secretary, District Yavatmal.
(5) Shri Sheikh Kausar Sheikh Akhtar,
Chairman of the Agricultural
Produce and Market Committee,
Pusad, R/o. Ward No. 1, Jamb
Bazar, District Yavatmal.
(6) Avinash Motiram Pawar,
Aged Major, R/o. Aregaon
(Khurd), Tah. Pusad, District
Yavatmal.
(7) Ashish Ramesh Bajaj,
Aged Major, R/o. Indraprast Nagar,
Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal. ....RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for the Respondent/State.
Shri F.T. Mirza, Sr. Adv a/b Ms. Isha Thakare, Adv for the
Respondent No. 4.
Shri S. Paliwal, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- AUGUST 12, 2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- SEPTEMBER 09, 2025
Judgment 4 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt
JUDGMENT:- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. (2) By the present Writ Petition, the present Petitioners have challenged the action of the Respondents of not accepting the resignations of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 but only adopted selective approach of accepting resignations of the Petitioner Nos. 7 and 9. The Petitioners have also challenging the major policy decisions taken by the Respondents subsequent to submission of their resignations including that of co-opting two new Members in place of the Petitioner Nos. 7 and 9 and giving the spaces of APMC on rent etc. (3) The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ Petition are as under:-
(4) In the month of April, 2023, the Petitioners were elected as the Members of the Respondent No. 4 - Agriculture Produce and Market Committee (APMC), Pusad. There were total Judgment 5 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt 18 Members in the Executive Committee of the APMC and the Petitioners - Members constitute 50% of its elected Executive Committee. That, on 08/08/2024, the Petitioners tendered their resignations from the post of the Members of the APMC to the Respondent No. 5 - Chairman, thereby reducing the Executive Committee to a minority and making it liable for dissolution under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").
(5) The District Deputy Registrar called for a report from the Secretary of the Respondent No. 4 - APMC about the regisnation of the Petitioners. On 10/08/2024, the Secretary of the APMC informed the District Deputy Registrar that the resignations have been received and the same will be processed by placing the same before the Chairman. On 12/08/2024, the District Deputy Registrar issued a communication to the Respondent No. 4 - APMC to take decision on the resignations of the Petitioners as per the law.
Judgment 6 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt (6) According to the Petitioners, on 16/08/2024, the
Respondent No. 5 - Chairman, APMC issued a notice of unauthorized meeting calling for general meeting of the APMC Members on 27/08/2024. On 27/08/2024, the meeting came to be adjourned to 30/08/2024 due to lack of quorum. Thereafter, through a news paper article, it came to the knowledge of the Petitioners that resignation of only Petitioner Nos. 7 and 9 were accepted by the Respondent No. 4 - APMC and that no decision has been taken on the resignations of the other Petitioners. On 04/09/2024, the Petitioners made complaint to the District Deputy Registrar with a copy of the above notice and news paper article and forwarded a copy of the said complaint to the Director of Marketing. On 06/09/2024, the APMC and the Chairman again issued a notice of separate meeting calling for general meeting of the APMC on 13/09/2024.
(7) It is submitted that the Petitioners were not provided even with a copy of the proceedings of the meeting dated 27/09/2024 and 30/09/2024. Nothing had been communicated Judgment 7 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt to the Petitioners about their resignations, so also, to the Petitioners whose resignations had been accepted. On one hand, the resignations of the Petitioners were being kept pending and on the other hand, major policy decisions are being taken such as co-opting of two Members, giving spaces of the APMC on rent etc. The above action on the part of the Respondents in not accepting the resignations of the Petitioners is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
(8) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that instead of acting on all resignations and dissolving the Committee, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 issued a notice dated 06/09/2024 calling a meeting on 30/09/2024 to co-opt two new Members. That, the selective acceptance of resignations, denial of meeting records, and unauthorized co-option of members are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory provisions, warranting interference by this Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Judgment 8 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt (9) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits
that all the nine resignations dated 08/08/2024 were voluntary and should have been accepted together under Section 16 of the said Act, but the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 selectively accepted only two, delayed action, and illegally co-opted members without any valid vacancy. They allege malafide intent, non- communication of acceptance, and procedural violations. (10) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied on the following citations:-
(a) Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia vs. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co., & others, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 38;
(b) Moti Ram vs. Param Dev & another, (1993) 2 SCC 725;
(11) On the contrary, Shri F.T. Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 submitted that the Petitioner No. 4 - the then Chairman of the APMC was declared as disqualified to be the Member of the APMC, Pusad under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(ii) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017, Judgment 9 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt and hence, he had tendered resignation to the Respondent No. 3
- District Deputy Registrar. Therefore, the Respondent No. 3 accepted the resignation of the Petitioner No. 4 on 26/03/2024 after disqualification.
(12) It is further submitted that for filling up the post of Chairman, the programme for conducting elections was published on 08/08/2024 by the Authorized Officer in which the Petitioner No. 6 and the Respondent No. 5 submitted their nomination forms. Elections were held on the same day and out of 18 votes, the Petitioner No. 6 secured 8 votes and the Respondent No. 5 got 9 votes and one Member was abstained from voting. As such, the Respondent No. 5 was elected as the Chairman of the APMC.
Thereafter, in the meeting of the APMC which was held on 08/08/2024, the resignations of the Petitioners were discussed wherein it was observed that seven Petitioners out of nine, are willing to take back their resignations and the Petitioner Nos. 7 & 9 were unwilling, hence, their resignations were accepted. Furthermore, since the resignation letters of the Petitioners Judgment 10 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt appeared identical, the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 were asked to confirm their authenticity by the communication dated 06/09/2024, but they refused to appear before the Chairman. On 13/09/2024, a Resolution was passed and two Members were co- opted in place of the Petitioner Nos. 7 and 9. It is submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 have neither accepted the communication dated 06/09/2024 nor appeared before the Chairman, hence, the decision of acceptance of their resignations was not taken. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on 16/10/2024, the resignations of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 have been accepted and this fact was informed to them. In view of the above, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition as the same has become infructuous.
(13) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4, in support of his contentions, relied on the following citations:-
(a) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Dilip Bhosale, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 847; and Judgment 11 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt
(b) Iftekharullah S/o Saidullah Baig vs. State of Maharashtra & another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2973. (14) Shri S.S. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 adopts the arguments of Shri F.T. Mirza, learned Senior Counsel on the point of maintainability of the Petition. He further submits that process of tendering resignations were immediately done after voting for the post of Chairman. The resignations tendered seemed to be with malacious intent and the intention behind the same was to stall the functioning of the Committee. The Market Committee is functioning as per the provisions of the APMC Act and Rules. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
(15) Heard both the parties at length. Perused the record and considered the citations and provisions of law. (16) By this Petition, initially were seeking relief for direction to the APMC, Pusad to accept the resignation dated 08/08/2024 of the Petitioners. It is also prayed to hold and declare that the Respondent No.5 - Chairman APMC, Pusad Judgment 12 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt accepting resignation of only two members and keeping the resignations of other members in abeyance is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also prayed that to quash and set aside all the major policy decisions including that of co-opting two members taken by the Respondent No.4 APMC, Pusad and Respondent No.5, Chairman APMC, Pusad. By way of amendment, relief for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 17/09/2024 issued by the Respondent No.3 Deputy District Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Yavatmal. This amendment application is filed in view of the affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No.4 on 29/11/2024, wherein it is stated that Respondent No.3 had issued a Notification dated 17/09/2024 thereby notifying the names of two new co-opted members.
(17) The contention of the Petitioners is that 9 members submitted their resignation but the only resignation of two members is accepted and two members were co-opted in their place. The Petitioners submit that there was no majority or quorum and market committee cannot function. As per the Judgment 13 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt Petitioners, 9+1 members would be required as per the amended bylaws. It is further contention of the Petitioners that the resignations were intentionally not accepted, it is specifically denied by the Respondents.
(18) The learned Senior Counsel Mr. F. T. Mirza, drawn our attention to the provisions of APMC Act, wherein Section 16 stipulates as under :
"16. Resignation of members and nomination in certain circumstances :
(1) Any member of the Market Committee may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman, and the Chairman may resign his office of member by writing under his hand addressed to the Director. The resignation shall take effect from the date it is accepted by the Chairman, or as the case may be, the Director.
(2) .................."
(19) Thus, Section 16 of the said Act does not provide any obligation on Chairman to communicate the acceptance of resignation to the resignee. Therefore, it appears that as soon as the Chairman accept the resignation, it would come into effect.
Judgment 14 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt So far as amendment and requirement of 9+1 quorum, that was proposed amendment and unless it is approved by the District Deputy Registrar, it would not come into effect. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. F. T. Mirza is sound and correct that the old bylaws which prescribed minimum quorum of 7 members is applicable and accordingly, the Market Committee having 9 members as on date and had every authority to function as there is quorum of 9 members, which after co- option of 2 members. To support of his contention that amendment was not finally approved by the District Deputy Register, our attention is also drawn to the Communication dated 20/12/2023 issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Yavatmal, whereby proposal for approval of amendment was returned back to the Chairman and Secretary of APMC, Pusad. This powers, we would find in Section 61(A) of the said Act, which reads thus :
"61A. Powers of Director to direct making or amending bye-laws :
(1) If it appears to the Director that it is necessary of expedient in the interest of a market Judgment 15 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt or Market Committee to make any bye-law or to amend any bye-law, he may, by order, require the Market Committee concerned to make the bye-law or to amend the bye-law within such time as he may specify in such order.
(2) .........
(3) .........."
(20) Rule 121 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 deals with amendment of bye-laws, which reads as under :
"121. Amendment of bye-laws :
(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, the bye-laws of a Market Committee may be amended, altered or abrogated by passing a resolution at a meeting of the Market Committee held for that purpose.
(2) The Market Committee shall give due notice under intimation to the Director in an accordance with its bye-laws to all the members for considering any amendment, alteration or abrogation of bye-law.
(3) An amendment, alteration or abrogation of a bye-law shall be deemed to have been duly made, if a resolution in that behalf is passed at a meeting by majority of the members present thereat and voting and sanctioned by the Director as provided by this rule.
(3A) ............
Judgment 16 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt
(4) ..............
(5) On receipt of of a copy of the resolution and other particulars referred to in sub-rule(4), the Director shall examine the amendment, alteration or abrogation proposed by the Market Committee and if he is satisfied that the amendment, alteration or abrogation is not contrary to the Act or the rules and is in the interest of the Market Committee and regulation of marketing of the declared agricultural produce, he may communicate his sanction to the amendment, alteration or abrogation as required by the sub- section (1) of section 61.
(6) Where the Director is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, alteration or abrogation may be sanctioned subject to any modification, he may indicate to the Market Committee such modification after explaining in writing his reasons therefore. The bye-law as modified shall be deemed to have come into force as soon as the modification is adopted by the Market Committee in the next meetings."
In view of sub-Rule 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 121, there is no automatic effect to the amendment unless it is approved by the Director.
(21) It is contention of the Petitioners that the Communication dated 20/12/2023 is nothing but an Judgment 17 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt
afterthought, fabricated and back dated communication. The said letter is in response to the letter of the APMC dated 09/01/2023, whereby the proposal for amendment to the quorum which was returned for compliance of deficiencies vide letter dated 20/12/2023. Thus, we do not see any substance in this contention.
(22) On going through the provisions of Section 16 of the said Act, the Chairman/Director as the case may be, is not obligated to communicate the resignation to the Petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. F. T. Mirza, pointed out that prayer clause (b) does not survive as all the resignations were accepted by the Chairman. Secondly, in view of Section 52B of the said Act, there is alternative remedy of appeal is provided. (23) The learned Senior Counsel Shri F. T. Mirza for Respondent relied on Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 held as under :
"8. Before parting with the order, we would like to observe that this Court is consistent of the view Judgment 18 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt and can be noticed from the judgment in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon (2010) 8 SCC 110, that when a remedy under the statute is available and in the instant case which indeed was availed by the respondent/borrower, filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be discouraged by the High Court".
(24) The learned Senior Counsel Shri F. T. Mirza for Respondent also placed reliance on Iftekharullah S/o Saidullah Baig (supra), wherein this Court in answer to the question, Whether, the draft regulations, without being approved by the competent authority/Government, could be enforced though the existing regulations are in operation? The answer is given in the negative. In the said matter, the draft regulation remained on the file of the Government without any approval until 2018 therefore, it was concluded that the draft regulation without being transformed into a law, would not amount to the repealing of the earlier 1964 regulations.
(25) The learned Senior Counsel Mr. F. T. Mirza also drawn our attention to the various provisions about resignation on Judgment 19 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt various Acts whereas Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Councilor) and Panchayat Samiti (Members) Regulation Rules 1962, wherein the manner of sending resignation as well as regulation when to be effected is provided under the said rules in Rule 3, 4, 5 and 6. As per the The Maharashtra Employees Of Private Schools (Conditions Of Service) Regulations Act, 1977, the resignation can be given after giving three calendar months notice for the permanent employee and one calender month notice in non- permanent employee. Similarly, resignation under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 provides under Section 41, the mode to be adopted vide tendering resignation by the Councilor. He also drawn our attention to the Sections 144-17A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. These provisions are specific and applicable to the employees governed by this Act. In the present matter, there is no such stipulation and it is the President who is empower to accept the resignation of members. There is no provision of communication of the same to the concerned person.
Judgment 20 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt (26) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that
in case of contract communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of power of the acceptor, as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 7 held as under :
"7. The Contract Act does not expressly deal with the place where a contract is made. Sections 3 & 4 of the Contract Act deal with the communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals. By Section 3 the communication of a proposal, acceptance of a proposal, and revocation of a proposal and acceptance, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it. Section 4 provides :
"The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
The communication of an acceptance is complete-
Judgment 21 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor;
as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.
The communication of a revocation is complete-
as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it;
as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge."
In terms Section 4 deals not with the place where a contract takes place, but with the completion of communication of a proposal, acceptance and revocation. In determining the place where a contract takes place, the interpretation clauses in Section 2 which largely incorporate the substantive law of contract must be taken into account. A person signifying to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence is said to make a proposal : clause (a). When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal when accepted, becomes a promise: clause (b), and every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other is an agreement: clause (e). An agreement enforceable at law is a contract: clause (k). By the second Judgment 22 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt clause of Section 4 the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. This implies that where communication of an acceptance is made and it is put in a course of transmission to the proposer, the acceptance is complete as against the proposer : as against the acceptor, it becomes complete when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. In the matter of communication of revocation it is provided that as against the person who makes the revocation it becomes complete when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it, and as against the person to whom it is made when it comes to his knowledge. But Section 4 does not imply that the contract is made qua the proposer at one place and give the acceptor at another place. The contract becomes complete as soon as the acceptance is made by the acceptor and unless otherwise agreed expressly or by necessary implication by the adoption of a special method of intimation, when the acceptance of offer is intimated to the offeror.
(27) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance on Moti Ram Vs. Paramdev (supra), however as discussed above, there is no bilateral resignation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter held as under :
Judgment 23 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt "16. As pointed out by this court, 'resignation' means the spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment. It has also been observed that the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. (See : Union of India v. Shri Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors., (1978) 2 SCC
301. If the act of relinquishment is of unilateral character, it comes into effect when such act indicating the intention to relinquish the office is communicated to the competent authority. The authority to whom the act of relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communication where the resignation is intended to operate in praesenti. A resignation may also be prospective to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from the date of communication. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of a bilateral character, the communication of the intention to relinquish, by itself, would not be sufficient to result in relinquishment of the office and some action is required to be taken on such communication of the intention to relinquish, e.g., acceptance of the Judgment 24 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt said request to relinquish the office, and in such a case the relinquishment does not become effective or operative till such action is taken. As to whether the act of relinquishment of an office is unilateral or bilateral in character would depend upon the nature of the office and conditions governing it."
(28) Thus, it can be seen that resignation once given, it is the prerogative of the President to accept it and what time it should be accepted. There is no any provision binding to President or Director, as the case may be, to accept the resignation within stipulated period or to communicate the said acceptance to the concerned person. So far as amendment in quorum is concerned, unless it is approved by the Director of APMC, the said amended bylaws shall not come into force. From the documents, it appears that the said proposal was returned by the Director to the APMC as there were compliances to be carried out. (29) As such, the bylaws which were in effect shall be continued. In view thereof, there is no illegality for passing the decision in the meeting by the APMC having quorum of 7 members. The reason for acceptance of resignation of only two Judgment 25 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt members is duly given that the other members were considering withdrawal of their resignation, however, the person of whose resignation is accepted, they were not willing to withdraw the resignation. There is no illegality in the notification issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal dated 17/09/2024 (Annexure-11). Thus, the Petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (30) At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners requests for continuation of the interim order, which was granted by order dated 10th December, 2024 for another three weeks. (31) Though, the learned Counsel for the Respondents opposes the said request, in order to grant fair opportunity to the Petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court, the interim order Judgment 26 J-WP No.5903.2024.odt granted vide order dated 10th December, 2024 in paragraph 6 to continue for another three weeks from today. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2025 18:04:17