Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3516 (BOM)

PYAR ALI SAYYED AHEMAD AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND OTHERS

CAO/367/2025 · 2026-08-25

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

(1) 6-CAO-367-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 367/2025 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5128/2025 PYAR ALI SAYYED AHEMAD AND OTHERS VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND OTHERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr., Advocate for the Applicant (s). Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Ms. Parita Lakhani, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2026. CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 367/2025 1. For the reasons set out in the application, the delay of 19 days in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition is condoned. 2. The application be registered and processed as per the Rules. 3. The application be registered and process as per Rules. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5128/2025 4. Heard. 5. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable forthwith. 6. Mr. A.V. Palshikar, learned AGP, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 7. Mr. Parita Lakhani, learned counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.4. Kartikeya (2) 6-CAO-367-2025 8. The petition was dismissed because the petitioners failed to remove the office objections in terms of the common order dated 20.12.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 2186 of 2019. 9. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the Advocate then appearing for the petitioners, for some inadvertent reason, failed to remove the office objections. He further submits that necessary steps will be taken within seven working days if the petition is restored to file. 10. In view of the aforesaid assurance, and for the reason set out in the application, the application is allowed. The order of dismissal is recalled. Writ Petition No. 2671 of 2019 is restored to file. 11. The petitioners shall remove the office objections within seven working days, failing which the order of dismissal shall stand restored. 12. In such an eventuality, the petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be deposited with the ‘Public Welfare Account’ bearing No. 129712010001014, IFSC Code No. UBIN0812978 with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya