1 5.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1515 OF 2026 IN WP/288/2024 SANJAY BAHGWAN CHAVAN AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS … Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. Barlinge Sudhir Raghunath AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. … CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 31.07.2026 PER COURT : . Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned AGP. for respondent/State. 2. By this Civil Application, the petitioner seeks modification of order dated 24.09.2025. While passing this order, this Court has relied on similar orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein, in the cases of similarly circumstanced petitioners, this Court has allowed the Writ Petitions in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘D’. 3. While allowing the Writ Petition, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’, ‘B’. Inadvertently prayer clause ‘D’ remained to be incorporated in the order. 4. Though learned AGP opposes the said prayer, considering the fact that, it is an inadvertent mistake, we are inclined to allow this Civil Application. 2026:BHC-AUG:34057-DB 2 5.doc 5. The Civil Application is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ which reads thus : “B) The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.288 of 2024 may kindly be modified by adding prayer clause (D) in addition to the prayer clauses (A) and (B) in the operative part of the order.” ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. ) vsj..