Dismissed¶24

Santosh Shrimant Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2025PIL/106/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, PIL No. 106 of 2025 (decided 17.11.2025; Shree Chandrashekhar CJ & Gautam A. Ankhad J): quo warranto sought against Shirish Gangadharrao Aradwad holding dual offices of Chief Fire Officer and City Engineer, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation; inquiry into his appointments, promotions, additional charges; Seniority List dated 01.01.2025 challenged; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition; no merits adjudication, no statutes or cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the PIL petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, if so advised ¶24

Santosh Shrimant Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the PIL petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, if so advised

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No. 5, Shri. Shirish Gangadharrao Aradwad, lawfully holds the offices of Chief Fire Officer and City Engineer within the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and whether a writ of quo warranto should issue removing him from those offices. +5 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the PIL with liberty to file a fresh petition if so advised; the Court permitted withdrawal and dismissed Public Interest Litigation No. 106 of 2025 as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No issue on the merits was adjudicated.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Santosh Shrimant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Public Interest Litigation No. 106 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ. and Gautam A. Ankhad, J.), decided 17 November 2025. The PIL sought (A) a writ of quo warranto against Respondent No. 5, Shri. Shirish Gangadharrao Aradwad, calling upon him to show by what authority he holds the offices of Chief Fire Officer and City Engineer within the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and seeking his removal; (B) a time-bound inquiry by Respondents No. 2 and No. 3 into all appointments, promotions and additional charges granted to him against prescribed service rules; (C) corrective action including relieving him from posts for which he is ineligible and disciplinary proceedings against responsible officials; (D) strict adherence to service rules for future NMMC appointments and promotions; (E) appointment of an eligible City Engineer and a separate Chief Fire Officer for Respondent No. 3; and (F) declaration of the Seniority List dated 01.01.2025 null and void. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, if so advised. The Court dismissed the PIL as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No statutory provision or precedent was cited and no issue on the merits was decided.

¶1

22-PIL.106.2025.doc

¶2

JVS.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 106 OF 2025

¶5

JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE

¶6

Digitally signed by JAYANTVISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2025.11.18 18:57:39 +0530

¶7

Santosh Shrimant Jadhav } Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents

¶8

Mr. Pranav Nair i/b. Mr. Kishore N. Sriyan, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for State.

¶10

CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶11

DATE: 17^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

By this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: -

¶14

“A] Issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling upon Respondent No. 5, Shri. Shirish Gangadharrao Aradwad, to show by what authority he holds the office of Chief Fire Officer and City Engineer within the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and upon being satisfied that he is holding the said office illegally and without lawful authority, remove him forthwith from the said office;

¶15

B} Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to forthwith initiate a thorough, impartial, and time-bound inquiry into all appointments, promotions, and additional charges granted to Shri. Shirish Gangadharrao Aradwad, verifying his eligibility against prescribed service rules for each post;

¶16

C} Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to take immediate corrective action, including relieving Shri. Shirish Gangadharrao Aradwad from all posts for which he is found ineligible, and initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against

¶17

¶18

22-PIL.106.2025.doc

¶19

all officials responsible for these alleged irregularities, including past and present Municipal Commissioners and other officers involved;

¶20

D] Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to ensure strict adherence to all applicable service rules, eligibility criteria, and government orders for all future appointments and promotions within the NMMC;

¶21

E] this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent no. 1 to appoint appropriate/eligible City Engineer and separate Chief Fire Officer for Respondent no. 3;

¶22

F] this Hon’ble court be pleased to direct the Seniority List dated 01.01.2025 be declared null and void.”

¶23

After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the PIL petition with liberty to file fresh petition, if so advised.

¶24

Public Interest Litigation No. 106 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶25

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶26

Santosh Shrimant Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Shrimant Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Tiroda Taluka Sangharsh Samity Tiroda, Thr. Secretary, Sandeep S/O Premlal Patil and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mumbai and Ors.

Sandeep Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Tiroda Taluka Sangharsh Samity Tiroda, Thr. Secretary, Sandeep S/O Premlal Patil and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. B. G. Patil vs Ramratna Education Foundation, Islampur, Taluka Walva, Dist. Sangli and Ors.

Firoj Rabbilal Jamadar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Sudarshan Murlidhar Gherade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Swapnil Nimbaji Aher vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary Public Works Dept and Ors.

Gahanan Narayan Mumbaikar vs the District Collector Raigad and Ors.

Makarand Monohar Joshi vs the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Disciplinary Authority

Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Secretary

M/.S R. K. Infraconstro Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. C4 Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Union of India through Ministry of Defence vs Lt. Col.Yesh Paul Sharma (Retd.) No Ic 48205N

Union of India vs Col Gulab Yasin Tamboli (Retd)

Union of India vs Col Bs Narayan Retd