Shubhangi Pandurang Sonawane @ Shubhangi Vikas Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shubhangi Pandurang Sonawane @ Shubhangi Vikas Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Restoration of the Writ Petition with condonation of the 95-day delay in filing the restoration Interim Application; leave to correct the description of Respondent No. 2; and directions to Respondent No. 2 (Pune ZP) to consider and decide the pending proposal dated 2.8.2017 within staggered 30-day timelines culminating in a reasoned order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 95 days in filing the Interim Application for restoration should be condoned and the Writ Petition, dismissed for default, restored to the file. +1 more

Court's answer

The Interim Application seeking restoration is allowed; the delay of 95 days is condoned and the Writ Petition stands restored.

Ratio / Principle

Restoration was allowed because the Registry had refused registration at pre-notice stage and an innocuous prayer was put forth in the Petition.

Key takeaways

Leave is granted to correct the description of Respondent No. 2 in the Petition and in the Application, the correction to be carried out forthwith.¶21
Respondent No. 2 is directed to follow the due procedure laid down in law and to consider the proposal dated 2.8.2017, if not yet decided.ratio¶25
Deficiencies, if any, shall be pointed out to the Management within 30 days from service of the order of the Court, by the Petitioner.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., 28.11.2025 — Interim Application No. 1079 of 2025 in Writ Petition St. No. 10794 of 2024, Shubhangi Pandurang Sonawane @ Shubhangi Vikas Kamble v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.: The Writ Petition, previously dismissed for default after the Registry refused registration on account of non-removal of office objections, is restored; the 95-day delay in filing the restoration Interim Application is condoned, the Court noting the Registry's pre-notice refusal and describing the prayer as innocuous. Leave is granted to correct the description of Respondent No. 2. On the Petition's sole prayer — that the proposal dated 2.8.2017, served on Respondent No. 2 (Pune ZP) on 9.8.2017 by the Management which appointed the Petitioner, be decided within a time frame — Respondent No. 2 is directed to follow the due procedure laid down in law and consider the proposal if not yet decided: the Petitioner is to point out deficiencies, if any, to the Management within 30 days of service of the order; the Management is to cure the deficiencies and resubmit the proposal within 30 days; and Respondent No. 2 is thereafter to decide the proposal on its own merits within a further period of 30 days and pass a reasoned order. With these directions the Writ Petition is disposed off. Advocates: Ankita Salvi i/b. Rajaram Deshmukh for the Petitioner; P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the State; Ashwin R. Kapadnis for Respondent No. 2-Pune ZP. No statute or precedent is cited in the order.

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2025.12.02 16:10:46 +0530 946.IA1079.2025.odt

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 : 28^th NOVEMBER, 2025

P.C. :

The Writ Petition was dismissed for default. The delay of

95 days is caused in filing this application for restoration.

The record reveals that the Registry refused registration to

this Petition on account of non-removal of office objections.

1

Talwalkar

946.IA1079.2025.odt

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

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.

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

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

2

Talwalkar

946.IA1079.2025.odt

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.

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off .

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

3

Talwalkar