The State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Mehmood Khan Anwar Khan Pathan And Another

(( 1 ))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2131 OF 2018 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.81 OF 2017 The State of Maharashtra & others ...

APPLICANTS

VERSUS

Shri Mehmood Khan Anwar Khan Pathan and another ...

RESPONDENTS .....

Shri S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for applicants Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondents .....

CORAM:

PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATED :

4th OCTOBER, 2018.

ORAL ORDER :

1.

Heard Mr. Dande, learned A.G.P. for the applicants and Mr. Gaware, learned counsel appearing for respondents (petitioners in Public Interest Litigation No.81/2017). The learned A.G.P. invited our attention to the order of this Court, dated 11.1.2018. The learned A.G.P. submitted that, by way of last opportunity, the respondent/ State was permitted to file reply before 31/1/2018 and it was further observed by this Court that if no reply is filed within stipulated period, the respondent No.4 shall be liable to deposit Rs.10,000/- towards cost and will not be

(( 2 )) entitled to seek reimbursement of the said amount from the Pubic Exchequer.

2.

Learned A.G.P. Mr. Dande submitted that, though the order of this Court was communicated to the ofÏce of respondent No.4, there was some inadvertent delay. An afÏdavit-in-reply is also filed on behalf of respondent No.4 on 9.2.2018. In the afÏdavit-in-reply of respondent No.4, it is stated that, the respondent No.4 tenders unconditional apology for the delay caused in filing the afÏdavit-in-reply. It is further stated that, the communication of the Govt. Pleader was not received by the respondent No.4. As such, the respondent No.4 had no knowledge about the order of this Court dated 11.1.2018. Then the reply refers to various orders passed by the State Government and certain documents are also placed on record along with the afÏdavit-in-reply.

In the application it is stated that the State Government also conducted an enquiry about the Madarsas and also issued directions to the concerned Education OfÏcer to take necessary steps to set criminal law in motion. The learned A.G.P. then submits that, there was no intention to file the afÏdavit-in-reply belatedly, but it was only an inadvertent mistake and the delay caused due to bonafide reason namely the communication gap. The learned A.G.P. thus prays for recalling clause (3) of the order dated 11.1.2018.

(( 3 )) 3.

In view of the fact that the afÏdavit-in-reply is filed on 9.2.2018, the State Government has also taken such steps causing an enquiry and also certain documents are placed on record to show that the State Government is taking some serious steps dealing with the issue raised in the Public Interest Litigation, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and the same is disposed of accordingly.

(MANISH PITALE) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE by Faridkhan Mahammadkhan Pathan Date:

2018.10.05 10:13:47 +0530 fmp/- Faridkhan Mahammadkhan Pathan