Jayshri Jalinder Jagtap v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(28) WRIT PETITION NO. 15115 OF 2025 M/s. Orange Developers, Through Partner Rakesh Phulchand Sonigara .. Petitioner

Versus

Sadhana Babanrao Telang and Ors.

.. Respondents WITH

(29) WRIT PETITION NO. 15116 OF 2025 M/s. Orange Developers, Through Partner Rakesh Phulchand Sonigara .. Petitioner

Versus

Sadhana Babanrao Telang and Ors.

.. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner.  Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for the State.

....................

CORAM

: MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 11, 2025.

P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Petitoner and Ms. Crasto, learned AGP for the State.

2.

At the outset, Mr. Deshmukh would persuade the Court to allow him to implead the State of Maharashtra as party Respondent to the Petitions since the impugned order under challenge has been passed by the State in two companion RTS proceedings out of which only one RTS proceeding has been disposed of and second RTS proceeding has been kept pending. His request for impleading the

State of Maharashtra as party Respondent is allowed in both Writ Petitions. Necessary amendment is permitted to be carried out forthwith in the presence of the Court. Re-verification stands dispensed with.

3.

One of the grievance expressed by Mr. Deshmukh is that one RTS proceeding is pending before Respondent No.1 - State. Though the cause title of the impugned order refers to both of them, the operative part of the order disposes of only one of RTS proceeding whereas the second RTS proceeding has been kept pending. This fact will have to be explained by the learned Government Pleader who appears for the State.

4.

In view of the above, issue notice to all private Respondents in both the Petitions. Humdast permitted.

5.

Ms. Crasto, learned AGP appears for the State and she waives service on behalf of State.

6.

In addition to Court notice, Petitioner is permitted to serve copy of Writ Petition and this order on the private Respondents and inform them about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate Affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on or before the next date.

7.

After receiving notice, private Respondents are directed to take cognizance of this order and file their Affidavit-in-Reply on or before the next date, if so desired.

8.

Private Respondents are directed to remain present in Court on the next adjourned date through their representative or through Advocate to answer the present Writ Petition. 9.

In the meanwhile, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'c' is granted.

10.

Stand over to 25th November 2025.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.11.11 17:27:35 +0530 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE