Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13459 (BOM)

BALIRAM TUKARAM RATHOD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

WP/4350/2026 · 2026-09-29

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

907-WP-4350-2026=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4350 OF 2026 Baliram Tukaram Rathod … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors … Respondents …………. Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w Sagar Mane, Rushikesh Jagdale, Neha Farkate i/b Vinayak Kumbhar for the Petitioner. Mr. Kedar Lad a/w Poonam Dhotre for Respondent No.3. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondent - State …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P. C. : . Heard. 2. Learned AGP tenders on record written instructions received from the Deputy Secretary stating duration of four weeks for finally deciding the revision preferred by the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bandiwadekar would inform this Court that his client has also received communication dated 28.09.2026 intimating the date of 30.09.2026 for hearing through Video Conferencing. The petitioner is ready to appear before 30.09.2026. So as to have breathing time for preparation he would be seeking time. In view of the written instructions which are submitted by learned AGP ends Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 2 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.10.01 12:02:04 +0530 907-WP-4350-2026=.doc of justice would be met in continuing the interim relief granted by this Court till final disposal of the proceedings pending before the learned Minister and expediting the proceedings. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Minister to decide the entire proceedings pending before him preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks and the interim relief granted by this Court shall remain in operation till final disposal of the proceedings and two weeks thereafter from the date of decision. 5. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it would be open for the authority to decide the proceedings on its own merits after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 2