Manoj Manohar Vaidya v. The Chairman/Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission

Ingale 35-wp-4873-24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2025.07.14 17:41:40 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4873 OF 2024 Manoj Manohar Vaidya and ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

The Chairman/Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission and ors..... Respondents **** Mr.Nitin Satpute a/w Mr.Rachit Singh, Ms.Sofiya Ansari, Mr.Nandkumar Pal, for the Petitioners.

Mr.Himanshu B. Takke, AGP for State-Respondents no. 1 to 4. Ms. Ranjana Todankar, for the Respondent No.5. **** CORAM :

M.S.KARNIK AND N.R.BORKAR, JJ.

DATE :

10th JULY 2025 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner no.1 was party respondent no.4 in the original application filed by respondent no.5 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ('The Tribunal', for short). Petitioner no.3 superannuated prior to the filing of this petition. Petitioner no. 1 superannuated six months post filing of this petition. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 10/09/2014. The review petition filed by Maharashtra Public Service Commission ('MPSC', for short) was

Ingale 35-wp-4873-24.odt dismissed by the Tribunal on 30/01/2015. The petitioners challenged these orders in this petition. There is delay of more than 8 years in filing of the present petition. The only reason stated in paragraph 20 of the memo of petition is that the petitioners were persistently following up the matter with the respondents. Learned counsel Shri Satpute submitted that the matter should have been pursued by MPSC and it was for the MPSC to challenge the order of rejection of review in this Court. It is submitted that as MPSC failed to do so, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners have good case on merits and the same should not be dismissed only on the ground of delay.

2.

The respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of Shri Satpute.

3.

We are of the opinion that the there is a gross delay and laches in filing the petition.

4.

The petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. (N.R.BORKAR, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)