Disposed¶19

Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari v. State of Maha., Ministry of Co-Op. Marketing and Textile Industries, Thr. Chief Secy. and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2025CAW/2040/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition; inadvertent challenge to orders dated 02.11.2018 and 29.06.2020; intended challenge to second-round orders dated 23.06.2022, 09.11.2022 and 31.05.2024; notices not issued in the petition; respondent No.7 opposition on ground of negligence; civil application allowed; writ petition disposed of as withdrawn; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.; 2025:BHC-NAG:9992.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw Writ Petition No.7501 of 2024 with liberty to file a fresh petition; the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn. ¶19

Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari Vs State of Maha., Ministry of Co-Op. Marketing and Textile Industries, Thr. Chief Secy. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw Writ Petition No.7501 of 2024 with liberty to file a fresh petition; the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw Writ Petition No.7501 of 2024 with liberty to file a fresh petition, the orders originally challenged (dated 02.11.2018 and 29.06.2020) having been inadvertently challenged instead of the subsequent second-round orders dated 23.06.2022, 09.11.2022 and 31.05.2024.

¶13

Court's answer

The request for withdrawal of the petition appears reasonable; since notices were not issued in the instant petition there is no reason to reject the application, and despite the reply filed by respondent No.7 contending negligence, the petitioner need not be deprived of his right to challenge the said orders.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The civil application seeking permission to withdraw the petition is allowed.

¶17

Key takeaways

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.; 29 September 2025), Civil Application (CAW) No.2040 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.7501 of 2024, Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari v. State of Maharashtra Ministry of Co-op. Marketing and Textile Industries thr. Chief Secy. and others. The petitioner applied to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, submitting that the orders dated 02.11.2018 and 29.06.2020 passed by the respondents authorities had been inadvertently challenged, whereas he intended to challenge the subsequent orders of the second round of litigation dated 23.06.2022, 09.11.2022 and 31.05.2024. Notices had not been issued in the petition, and respondent No.7 opposed the application contending that the petitioner was negligent. Holding the request reasonable and that the petitioner need not be deprived of his right to challenge the said orders, the Judge allowed the civil application, permitted withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition, and disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:9992

¶2

1 6. WP 7501 of 2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.2040 OF 2025 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7501 OF 2024

¶6

JITENDRA KAWARILAL KOTHARI

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA MINISTRY OF CO-OP. MARKETING AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES, THR. CHIEF SECY. AND OTHERS

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Mr. R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. P.C. Bawankule, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5-State. Mr. Pushkar Ghare, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

¶11

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 29^th SEPTEMBER 2025

¶12

1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the instant petition is filed, raising challenge to the orders dated 02.11.2018 and 29.06.2020, passed by the respondents authorities. The said orders are inadvertently challenged. The petitioner in fact desired to challenge the subsequent orders passed in the second round of litigation, which are dated 23.06.2022, 09.11.2022 and 31.05.2024, passed by the respondents authorities.

¶15

2 6. WP 7501 of 2024.odt

¶16

On perusal of the application and submissions advanced, the request for withdrawal of the petition appears to be reasonable. Considering the fact that notices were also not issued in the instant petition, there is no reason to reject the application. Although learned Advocate for respondent No.7 has filed reply opposing the application contending that the petitioner has been negligent, I find that the petitioner need not be deprived of his right to challenge the said orders.

¶17

Having regard to the contents of the application and submissions advanced, the civil application is allowed.

¶18

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.

¶19

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶20

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶21

asd

Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari v. State of Maha., Ministry of Co-Op. Marketing and Textile Industries, Thr. Chief Secy. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari v. State of Maha., Ministry of Co-Op. Marketing and Textile Industries, Thr. Chief Secy. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Enigneer, Akola Irrigation Division, Akola Vs Ashatai W/O. Gopalrao Sontakke and Ors.

Executive Engineer, Akola Irrigation Division, Akola Vs Fakira S/O. Lattu Bhagat and Ors.

Satish Prabhakar More vs Kolilabai Pralhadrao Dhote Thr. Spl Poa Holder, Shaligram B. Dhore and Anr.

Trinetra Real Estate Builders and Developers, Thr. Proprietor, Dnyaneshwar v. Chinchone, Nagpur vs Gajadhar Prasad Hiralal Kosta and Others

Rajesh Raibhan Madame vs Sanjay Barde, Genereal Manager, Bhandara District Cooperative Bank Ltd, Bhandara and Anr.

Madhuban Kushthrog Nirmulan Sanstha, Jambhulghat, Thr. Secretary, Ankush B. Nevalkar vs Ku. Kirti Suresh Chillapawar @ Sau. Kirti Atul Bhut