Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6028 (BOM)

SAHIL VISHNU KHAIRNAR v. THE SCHEDULED TRIBES CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE THRU. MEMBER AND ORS

IA/6177/2026 · 2026-09-02

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

16 ia6177-26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6177 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1073 OF 2026 Sahil Vishnu Khairnar .. Petitioner Versus The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Piyush Pande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.H,Kankal, A.G.P. for the Respondent / State CORAM: R. I. CHAGLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 P. C. 1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant / Petitioner is seeking restoration of Writ Petition (L) No.1073 of 2026 which came to be rejected by conditional Order dated 24th March 2026 passed by Registrar (Judicial-I). 2. The Applicant has stated that the office objections had been raised on the filing of the Petition. However, the listing of the matter before Mohite 1/3 TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.09.03 16:37:31 +0530 16 ia6177-26.doc the Registrar (Judicial-I) and the order passed for removal of the office objections within two weeks had not been to the knowledge of the Advocate for the Petitioner. 3. The matter had come up before the Registrar (Judicial-I) on 24th March 2026 and two weeks’ time had again been granted for removing of office objections, failing which the Petition would stand rejected automatically. 4. It is stated that the email notification of listing of the matter before the Registrar (Judicial-I) was not received by the Advocate for the Petitioner and hence he was not made aware of the same. The Applicant has further stated that, due to oversight of the office clerk of the Advocate, the office objections could not be removed within two weeks, in compliance of the Order dated 24th March 2026, resulting in rejection of the Petition. The Applicant has stated that, due to inadvertence on the part of the Advocate for the Applicant, office objections could not be removed. 5. Considering the averments in the Interim Application, we consider it appropriate to allow the reliefs sought for therein. The Applicant Mohite 2/3 16 ia6177-26.doc being a layperson, should not be made to suffer on account of mistakes on the part of the Advocate. 6. In view thereof, the following Order is passed: a. Writ Petition (L) No.1073 of 2026 is restored to file by setting aside the Order dated 24th March 2026 passed by Registrar (Judicial-I) by which the Writ Petition came to be rejected for non-removal of office objections. b. The Petitioner shall remove the office objections raised by the Registry within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of this Order. c. Failure to do so shall result in the Writ Petition being rejected without reference to the Court. d. Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R. I. CHAGLA, J.] Mohite 3/3