Disposed

Prashant Ratnakar Khadilkar v. Shri Rakesh Vasant Salunke and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2018CAW/449/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil application, the Court dismissed the applicant's request for clarification of a MAT order because the underlying writ petition was withdrawn without liberty to apply. The Court disposed of the matter, granting liberty to file a fresh application if the earlier order is modified.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Application was disposed of; liberty granted to file a fresh application if the order dated 24.1.2017 is modified or clarified.

Prashant Ratnakar Khadilkar Vs Shri Rakesh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

caw449.doc

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.449 OF 2017 IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.12530 OF 2015

¶5

Prashant Ratnakar Khadilkar...Applicant
In the matter between
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Petitioners
vs.
Rakesh Vasant Salunke & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Sandeep S. Dere with Anand D. Gugale for the
applicant

¶7

Mr.P.G.Sawant, AGP for the respondents

¶8

Digitally signed byShubhashri ShubhashriShridhar ShridharPathak Pathak Date: 2018.08.30 15:23:04 +0530

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 M.S.SONAK, JJ.
 DATE : AUGUST 20, 2018

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1The present applicant was the respondent No.3
in Writ Petition No.12530 of 2015 filed by the State
of Maharashtra and others for challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 4th August 2015 passed by
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short
`MAT') in Original Application No.431 of 2014 filed
by the present applicant and 24 others. The said
writ petition filed by the State Government was
disposed of by order dated 15th March 2016 passed by
the First Court. As the present applicant was
aggrieved by the said order of MAT which was subject
matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.12530 of
2015, the present applicant filed Writ Petition

¶12

2 caw449.doc

¶13

No.8633 of 2016. The said writ petition was
disposed of as withdrawn on 24th January 2017 by a
Division Bench of this Court. The said order reads
thus:

¶14

“Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to
withdraw the petition with liberty to avail
the remedies which are available in law.
Leave, as prayed for, is granted.”

¶15

2Now, by this Civil Application, the applicant
is seeking clarification of the order dated 15th
March 2010. As stated earlier, the writ petition
filed by the State Government challenging the said
order was disposed of by order dated 15th March 2016.

¶16

3However, the applicant and others challenged
the said order of MAT by filing a Writ Petition
No.8633 of 2016 which is disposed of as withdrawn by
order dated 24th January 2017. The said order does
not grant any liberty to the applicant to make an
application to this Court for seeking modification
or clarification of the order dated 15th March 2016.
Therefore, in light of the order dated 24th January
2017, no prayer for clarification as sought by the
applicant can be considered.

¶17

4Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, the
learned counsel for the applicant states that he
will apply for clarification of the order dated 24th

¶18

caw449.doc

¶19

January 2017. Only if the said order is clarified or
modified, the application containing the prayers
made in this application can be entertained.
Therefore, as of today, no case is made out for
grant of any relief. Hence, we dispose of the Civil
Application with liberty to the applicant to file a
fresh Application in the event the order dated 24th
January 2017 is modified or clarified.

¶20

(M.S.SONAK,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)

Prashant Ratnakar Khadilkar v. Shri Rakesh Vasant Salunke and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Ratnakar Khadilkar v. Shri Rakesh Vasant Salunke and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Byculla House Premises Co-Operative Society Limited Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Kaushalya Atmaram Shinde and 399 Ors. Vs Slum Rehablitation Authority and 2 Ors.

Rustom N. Nanavaty and Anr. Vs Manek Dara Sukhadwala

The Loot India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Houseful Internationla Ltd.

The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Anr. Vs Shri Vivek Chandrashekhar Byale, Jule, Solapur