Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5574 (BOM)

PRADIP BANSILAL PHULPAGARE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE CHEIF SECRETARY

RPW/26/2026 · 2026-08-27

Review Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

3 WP(L)-24397-2026GRP.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.26 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5007 OF 2025 Pradip Bansilal Phulpagare ...Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.15381 OF 2026 and WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 24397 OF 2026 Milind Mohan Atakale ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents with INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.28903 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.28578 OF 2026 _______ Mr. Pralhap Paranjape a/w Mr. Manish Kelkar for Petitioner in WPL/24937/2026 and for Applicants in IAL/15381/2026 Mr. Anand Pai a/w Mr. Sachin Mhatre, Ms. Diksha Shirodkar, Mr. Aman Kachria, Mr. Sachit Sayyed, Lavanya Panickar i/b Mhatre Law Associates for Petitioner in RPW/26/2026. Mr. V. A. Nagrani a/w Mr. Sameer Singh for proposed Intervenors Smt. Rita Joshi, AGP for State in WPL/24397/2026. Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. G. P. With Smt Gauri Sawant, AGP for State in RPW/26/2026 in WP/5007/2025. Mr. R. R. Shetty, Sr. Adv i/b Mr. Vishal P. Shirke for Applicant in IAST/28578/2026 and for R. No. 6 To 8 in RPW/26/2026. Mr. Naushad Engineer, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Pranav Narsaria, Ms. Aparana Kalathi & Ms. Sayali Apte i/b Mr. P. G. Lad for MHADA _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. (At 4.30 p.m.) DATE: 27 AUGUST 2026 P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Pai, learned Counsel for the review petitioner, Mr. Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, Mr. P.V.Rane PRASHANT VILAS RANE Digitally signed by PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2026.09.02 12:47:59 +0530 3 WP(L)-24397-2026GRP.DOC Naushad Engineer, learned Senior Counsel for MHADA and learned AGP for the State. 2. In the present proceedings, the review as prayed for is of our order dated 10 December 2025 by which the proceedings were disposed of and more particularly, in the context of what was observed by the Court in paragraph 7, and also disposing of Writ Petition (l) No.24805 of 2025. 3. It appears that after the petitions were disposed of on 10 December 2025, quite surprisingly, a communication was addressed by Mr. Amol Raut, Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra, to the Chairman cum Chief Executive Officer, MHADA, dated 29 December 2025 (Exhibit B) wherein it has been stated that no proposal was pending of the MHADA for amendment of Rule 5 of the MHADA Executive Engineers Recruitment Rules, 1997. In this view of the matter, it is the contention urged on behalf of the review petitioner as also by Mr. Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 that the writ petition would be required to be heard on merits as the entire basis of the said order passed by this Court and subject matter of the review would cease to exist in view of the said letter dated 29 December 2025, when it is being projected that there is nothing on record of the State Government as submitted by MHADA in the nature of a proposal to amend the Rule. 4. We find substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the review petitioner as also Mr. Shetty. 5. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the stand taken by the State Government, learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that by consent, the P.V.Rane 3 WP(L)-24397-2026GRP.DOC order under review dated 10 December 2025 be set aside and the writ petitions be restored to the file of this Court to be adjudicated on merits. 6. As agreed between the parties, we accordingly allow this review petition in terms of the following order:- ORDER (i) Order dated 10 December 2025 disposing of Writ Petition (l) No.36118 of 2025 (Pradip Bansilal Phulpagare & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and Writ Petition (l) No.24805 of 2025 (Piyush Arun Kamble vs. Addl. Chief Secretary, MHADA & Ors.) is recalled and set aside. (ii) The said Writ Petitions are restored to the file of the Court with the interim relief granted earlier in terms of paragraph (5) of the order dated 20 April 2026. (iii) All contentions of the parties on the writ petition are expressly kept open. 7. Review petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) P.V.Rane