902-WP-4134-2026 (C).DOC Mayur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4134 OF 2026 Mumbai Krushi Utpanna Bazaar Samiti And Anr …Petitioner Versus Mahesh Narayanrao Salunke And Anr. …Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, i/b Ms. Kirit Hakani, Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ms. Niyati Mankad, Mr. Advait Dalvi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Om Lonkar, a/w Ms. Advaita Lonkar, for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED: 2nd SEPTEMBER 2026. PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners. We have also heard Mr. Lonkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1. None has appeared for Respondent No. 2 – State. 2. This writ petition has been preferred against the interim orders dated 10th March 2026 as well as 25th March 2026 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“MAT”) in Original Application No. 228 of 2026. The said Original Application was instituted by Respondent No. 1 as the Original Applicant with the following prayers: - MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Digitally signed by MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Date: 2026.09.07 11:11:33 +0530 902-WP-4134-2026 (C).DOC “(a) This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the order impugned dated 24.02.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2 at Ex-A to the present O.A. as illegal and bad in law and the same be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner. (b) Pleading the hearing and final disposal of the present O.A. this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an interim order staying the order impugned dated 24.02.2026 issued by Respondent no. 2, with further directions directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue to work as Deputy Registrar/Deputy Secretary, Mumbai Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mumbai or such terms and conditions as deem fit. (c) pass any other or such order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (d) Costs be provide for” 3. It has been brought to our notice that, during the pendency of this writ petition, Respondent No. 1 i.e., the Original Applicant, who was on deputation, has not only been repatriated to his Parent Department but he has also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30th June 2026. If that be so, the writ petition as well as the Original Application have apparently become infructuous. Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the legal issue, more particularly, one pertaining to the jurisdiction of the learned MAT to entertain the Original Application in the facts of the case, be kept open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. 4. Responding to the above, Mr. Lonkar has also agreed that the cause espoused by his client in the Original Application no longer survives. However, he submits that his client should not be 902-WP-4134-2026 (C).DOC precluded from agitating any ancillary issue, such as non-release of salary, by availing appropriate legal remedy, if the need so arises. 5. After taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. The legal issue, as noted above, is however, kept open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. 6. This order be brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal so as to facilitate appropriate order being passed in the pending Original Application. 7. Respondent No.1 would also be at liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedy, by filing a fresh application, if any as and when a proper cause of action arises. 8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)