Rajesh Nilkanth Kohok v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
2024:BHC-AUG:27857-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12501 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9894 OF 2023 SAMINA GOHER MOHAMMED SOFI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
AND 908 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12504 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9860 OF 2023 NILESH BHAUSAHEB GOSAVI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
AND 909 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12505 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9876 OF 2023 PRAMILA TUKARAM MARBHAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
AND 910 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12506 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9864 OF 2023 RAJESH NILKANTH KOHOK
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
AND 911 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12508 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9874 OF 2023 APPASAHEB KACHARU ADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 1/3
...
AND 912 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12510 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9863 OF 2023 PREETI AVINASH JOSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
AND 913 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12511 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9862 OF 2023 MANJABAPU KASHINATH URHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar - Advocate for Applicants Mr. S.P. Joshi, Mr. A.S. Shinde, Mr. S.S. Dande, Mr. V.M. Kagane and Ms. P.V. Diggikar - AGP's for Respondents, State ....
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2024 PER COURT :
1.
Heard respective learned Counsel.
2.
Issue notice to the respondents. Learned A.G.P. waives service for all the respondents, State.
3.
This Court by common order dated 12.01.2024 dismissed the petitions for the reason that the office objections were not removed. It seems that the approach of the 2/3
respective petitioners, in such matters is very casual and after delay of 227 days they moved the application for restoration and condonation of delay. It seems that, the liberal view of the Court is taken otherwise. To control such a conduct the Court is compelled to apply strict yardstick in condoning the delay. Even in a pension case the parties appears not diligent. However, to protect the interest of the petitioners the delay is condoned subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- (rupees Three Thousands only) each to be paid to the Aurangabad High Court, Dispensary, within two weeks from today. 4.
After depositing the cost, the petitions be restored to their original position. 5.
Stand over to 23rd January, 2025.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S.G. MEHARE, J.) Pooja Kale 3/3