Shubhangi Pandurang Sonawane @ Shubhangi Vikas Kamble v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And ORS

by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date:

2025.12.02 16:10:46 +0530 ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1079 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 10794 OF 2024 Shubhangi Pandurang Sonawane @ Shubhangi Vikas Kamble.

... Petitioner.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents.

--- Mr. Ankita Salvi i/b. Mr. Rajaram Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for Respondent/State.

Mr. Ashwin R. Kapadnis, Advocate for Respondent No. 2-Pune ZP. --- CORAM :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE :

28th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. :

1.

The Writ Petition was dismissed for default. The delay of 95 days is caused in filing this application for restoration. 2.

The record reveals that the Registry refused registration to this Petition on account of non-removal of office objections.

3.

Leave to correct the description of Respondent No. 2 in the Petition as well as in the Application. Correction be carried out forthwith.

4.

The only prayer made in the Petition is that the pending proposal dated 2.8.2017 served on Respondent No. 2 on 9.8.2017 by the Management, which appointed the Petitioner, be decided within a time frame. An innocuous prayer is put forth.

5.

Since the Registry refused registration at pre-notice stage, coupled with the fact that an innocuous prayer is put forth, the Interim Application seeking restoration is allowed. The delay is condoned. The Writ Petition stands restored.

ORDER BELOW WRIT PETITION 6.

Since the Petitioner prays that the pending proposal be directed to be decided within a time frame, we are directing Respondent No. 2 to follow the due procedure laid down in law and consider the said proposal dated 2.8.2017, if not yet decided. The deficiencies, if any, shall be pointed out to the Management within 30 days from the service of the order of this Court, by the Petitioner. After the deficiencies are

pointed out to the Management, it would endeavour to cure the deficiencies within a period of 30 days and resubmit the proposal. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 would decide the proposal on its own merits within a further period of 30 days and pass a reasoned order. 7.

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)