Mr. Pandarinath Gopal Tandel vs the Rehabilitation Officer Cidco, and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mr. Pandarinath Gopal Tandel vs the Rehabilitation Officer Cidco, and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Ad-interim order vacated; matter placed on 7 May 2025 for "directions" affording the Petitioner an additional opportunity subject to service of notice with proof of service; the Interim Application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the ad-interim protection granted to the Petitioner should continue or be vacated, in light of CIDCO's position that the regularization application was rejected in 2016, the filed rejection order, and the affidavit regarding its communication. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court vacated the ad-interim order, having regard to CIDCO's submission that the Petitioner's application for regularisation was rejected in 2016, CIDCO's filing of the order of rejection, the affidavit's categorical statement regarding its communication, and the affidavit's explanation of the status of regularisation of the other 15 stalls.

Ratio / Principle

To grant the Petitioner an additional opportunity, the matter was placed on 7 May 2025 for "directions", with Ms. Singh or her senior Mr. Pathade expected to inform the Petitioner of the date, appear on that date along with a notice and proof of service, and record the notice.

Key takeaways

The Court indicated prospectively that if the Petitioner does not appear despite all the above efforts, it will consider whether the petition deserves to be dismissed.obiter¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Division Bench of M. S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ., 30 April 2025 — Interim Application No.13304 of 2024 in Writ Petition No.5129 of 2018, Pandarinath Gopal Tandel v. The Rehabilitation Officer CIDCO, Thane & Ors.: At the resumed hearing, counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner stated on instructions that they were withdrawing their Vakalatnama, and the Petitioner was absent when called despite being notified of the hearing. CIDCO had earlier submitted (recorded in the Court's 21 February 2025 interim order) that the Petitioner's application for regularization was rejected in 2016 and that there is no provision to entertain representations after rejection; CIDCO subsequently filed the order of rejection with a categorical affidavit statement regarding its communication, and the affidavit explained the status of regularisation of the other 15 stalls of BMTC's employees in the locality. In these circumstances, the Court vacated the ad-interim order (protection originally granted by order dated 17 February 2025). To give the Petitioner an additional opportunity, the matter was placed on 7 May 2025 for "directions", requesting Ms. Singh or Mr. Pathade to inform the Petitioner of the date and to appear with a notice and proof of service. The Court observed that if the Petitioner does not appear despite these efforts, it will consider whether the petition deserves to be dismissed. The Interim Application was disposed of.

2025:BHC-AS:19909-DB

Sayyed 11-IA.13304.2024.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13304 OF 2024 IN

WRIT PETITION NO.5129 OF 2018 WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.5129 OF 2018

Pandarinath Gopal Tandel ...Applicant/Petitioner Versus

The Rehabilitation Officer CIDCO, Thane & Ors. ...Respondents

Ms. Priyanka R. Singh h/f. Mr. Jitendra M. Pathade for the Applicant/ Petitioner.

Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge for Respondent No.6-NMMC.

Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. P. M. Bhansali for the Respondent-CIDCO

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 30 April 2025

PC.:-

Heard Ms. Singh, who holds for Mr. Pathade for the ApplicantPetitioner, Mr. Deolekar, learned AGP appears for the State, Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for CIDCO, and Mr. Garge appears for Respondent No.6-NMMC.

After hearing the matter for some time on 21 February 2025, we made the following order:-

“1. Mr. Hegde, the learned Senior Advocate for the CIDCO, on instructions, states that the Petitioner’s application for regularization was rejected some time in 2016. He states that there is no provision to entertain the representations after regularization application is already rejected.

Page 1 of 3

Sayyed 11-IA.13304.2024.docx

2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that no rejection of Petitioner’s application for regularization has been communicated to the Petitioner till date.

3. Accordingly, it will be appropriate if the CIDCO files an affidavit placing on record the order of rejection of regularization and proof of its communication. Further, the CIDCO should also address the Petitioner’s allegations that in the same locality almost 15 out of 16 stalls of BMTC’s employees have been regularized.

4. Mr. Hegde states that such an affidavit will be filed and served by 07 March 2025.

5. List the matter on 13 March 2025, to be shown High on Board.

6. The protection granted by our order dated 17 February 2025 to continue till the next date.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the 15 regularized stalls are in Sector 2, CBD Belapur, near Maruti Mandir. He states that he has any further details, he will furnish the same to the learned counsel for the CIDCO within seven days. He states that he will, in any event, give the photographs of the regularized structures to the learned counsel for the CIDCO in next seven days. If we find that the Petitioner is delaying the matter, then we will consider vacating the ad-interim order granted.”

Today, Ms. Singh, on instructions from her senior, states that they are withdrawing their Vakalatnama on behalf of the ApplicantPetitioner. In response to the court’s query, she stated that the ApplicantPetitioner has been notified of today’s hearing.

Accordingly, we called out the Petitioner’s name, but the Petitioner was absent.

This is a matter where Mr. Hegde, learned senior counsel for CIDCO, has submitted that the Petitioner’s application for regularisation was rejected in 2016. CIDCO has filed the order of rejection, and a categorical statement has been made in the affidavit regarding this communication. The affidavit also explains the status of the regularisation of the other 15 stalls.

In the above circumstances, we vacate the ad-interim order.

Page 2 of 3

Sayyed 11-IA.13304.2024.docx

To grant the Petitioner an additional opportunity, we place the matter on 7 May 2025 for “directions”. We request Ms. Singh or her senior Mr. Pathade to inform the Petitioner once again about the next date and record the notice along with proof of service. Accordingly, we expect Ms. Singh or Mr. Pathade to appear on 7 May 2025 along with a notice and proof of service.

If the Petitioner does not appear despite all the above efforts, we will consider whether this petition deserves to be dismissed. The Interim Application is disposed of.

Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/05/2025 15:01:36

Page 3 of 3