1-CAW-1782-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1782 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2918 OF 2024 (D) (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev V. Chimote (HUF) & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. Abhijeet Khare, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Sharma, Counsel for the applicants/respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. V.A. Bramhe, Counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 7. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. OCTOBER 9, 2026 Heard. 2] The prayer is to modify the order dated 28/3/2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2918/2024 with connected petition. The modification as sought is to direct original respondent no.5 to decide the complaint dated 10/12/2023 in accordance with law. 3] The Counsel for the applicants/original respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that while arguing the Writ Petition, the Counsel for the said respondents made a request to the Court to direct the respondent authority, i.e., respondent no.5, to decide the complaint, filed by the said respondents, on merits. According to the applicants, the Court was of the view that the authority will decide the complaint and no observation was necessary. 4] The grievance is that respondent no.5 is avoiding to take decision, probably on the pretext that 2026:BHC-NAG:13561-DB 1-CAW-1782-2025 2 this Court has not directed respondent no.5 to decide the complaint so lodged by the applicants. Accordingly, the modification is sought as mentioned above. 5] The Counsel for the original petitioner submits that in the application, the applicants have averred the aforesaid grievance. If such was the case, and if the Court did not accede to the request, it would mean that the request so made has been rejected, and therefore, no modification is required. 6] We find substance in the contentions put forth by the Counsel for the original petitioner. There are two reasons why we are not inclined to grant relief. Firstly, the Court (Coram : Avinash G. Gharote and Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.), before whom the petition was argued, is not the one before whom the present application has been filed. One of the Judges (Justice Avinash G. Gharote) has retired, and accordingly, the application is listed before the present Bench. One of us, i.e., Anil L. Pansare, J., was not the Member of the Bench and is, thus, not aware of what transpired during the course of hearing. Secondly, and as rightly submitted by the Counsel for the original petitioner, if the request was made by the applicants to direct respondent no.5 to decide the complaint on merits, and if such directions are not given in the order, it would mean that the request so made has been rejected. 7] In any case, the applicants may raise their grievance before the appropriate forum, if respondent no.5 is avoiding to take decision despite setting aside his 1-CAW-1782-2025 3 order on account of not giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8] With the above observations, the application is rejected. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 18:58:37