(1) 901-CAF-584-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 584/2026 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 5776/2025 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHA. STATE ROAD DEVLP. CORPORATION, NAGPUR (RING ROAD PROJECT) VS LAXMAN SITARAM RAUT AND OTHERS WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 5776/2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant (s)/Appellant. Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent No.3-State. Mr. S.N. Chinchbankar h/f. Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026. 1. Respondent No.4 is not yet served. The appellant shall take necessary steps to serve Respondent No.4. 2. Learned AGP seeks time to file reply on behalf of Respondent No.3. 3. On previous date, i.e. on 31.07.2026, the following order was passed : “Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay. 3. According to Mr. Mohagaonkar, learned counsel for the applicants, though, acquiring body was joined as non-applicant no. 2 before the Reference Court, without their being any authority to the DGP/AGP, the appearance was put by them. He further submits that no efforts were taken by the counsel representing non- applicant no. 2, who was never authorized, to protect the interest of the acquiring body since neither arguments were advanced nor evidence was led. He further submits that the compensation which was granted by LAO, was enhanced ten times by the Reference Court. He submits that for the first time, the acquiring body came to know about passing of Award when notice of execution proceeding was served upon them and therefore, delay has been caused. Kartikeya (2) 901-CAF-584-2026 4. At this stage, we are at pain to state that the acquiring body’s interest was not protected and if the arguments of Mr. Mohagaonkar are to be accepted, were not represented by the person authorized. 5. We put the office of DGP/AGP to the notice that if it is found that without any authorization, the DGP/AGP had appeared, we would be even thinking of directing registration of First Information Report against person concerned. 6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 18.8.2026. 7. Mr. S. Bhattad has already filed his power for respondent nos. 1/A, 1/B, 2/A and 2/B. No fresh notice is required to be issued to them. 8. Learned AGP waives notice for respondent no. 3/State. 9. In addition to regular mode, the appellants are permitted to serve the respondent no. 4 by all the modes permissible, including RPAD. 10. Considering the fact that learned counsel for applicant has made a categorical statement that no such authorization was given to DGP/AGP for representing the applicant before the Reference Court, learned AGP is directed to file a specific reply in the light of order passed today. He is further directed to produce on record copy of authorization given by the present appellant to represent it before the Reference Court.” 11. Considering the aforesaid observations and the statement made by Mr. Mohagaonkar that in connected matters, this Court has already stayed the execution proceedings, in the present proceeding also, the execution proceeding be stayed until further order.” 4. As could be seen, the applicant herein has made a categorical statement that the DGP/AGP who appeared before the Reference Court was not authorized to represent the applicant. 5. Our attention is drawn to the pursis filed by the learned DGP/ADGP dated 07.11.2019 and 04.05.2023, saying that Non- Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 therein, who are Non-Applicant No. 3 and the applicant herein, do not want to lead any further evidence and therefore, they want to close the evidence. 6. The applicant has also contended that the DGP/ADGP failed to protect the interest of the acquiring body since neither arguments were advanced nor evidence was laid. 7. That being so, we direct the applicant to make the concerned DGP/ADGP as party Non-Applicant No.5. 8. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith. 9. Issue notice to the non-applicants, returnable on 04.09.2026. 10. Mr. S.N. Chichbankar learned counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Kartikeya (3) 901-CAF-584-2026 11. Mr. N.R. Patil, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.3. 12. Learned AGP shall inform the order passed today to Non- Applicant No. 5 and shall also take instructions on her behalf, and if authorized, shall file reply to the allegations made against her. 13. Our attention is also invited to the Written Statement filed by the applicant. It is signed by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub-Division, Katol. 14. Thus, the applicant has been represented through the Sub- Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub-Division. 15. Learned AGP shall take instructions as to whether the Sub-Divisional Engineer of the Public Works Department was authorized to represent the applicant. FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 5776/2025 16. Heard. 17. Admit. 18. Call for R & P. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya