Jijimol Samraj v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sec. School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2025WP/10104/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC common order 02-12-2025 (Ghuge & Bhobe, JJ.): office objections to be removed within 2 weeks; existing ad-interim/interim orders to continue; reply/rejoinder affidavits at least 1 week before next date; spare copies within 14 days else dismissal against unserved respondents on 15th day; listing chart 09-12-2025 to 21-01-2026 (prioritised/fresh/due/urgent admission, disposal, dismissal, compliance, passing orders). Administrative order — no merits, no citations, no amounts.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of ad-interim/interim orders, if any granted earlier, subject to removal of office objections within two weeks; matters listed per the chart on dates from 09/12/2025 to 21/01/2026. ¶¶10

Jijimol Samraj vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sec. School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

.. 1 .. common order

¶2

Digitally signed GAYATRI by GAYATRIRAJENDRA RAJENDRA SHIMPI SHIMPI Date:2025.12.04 17:50:46 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION/ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶5

DATE : 2^nd DECEMBER, 2025.

¶6

P.C. :-

¶7

At the time of rising at 5.45, the matters mentioned in the chart in paragraph No.7 hereunder, could not be taken up for hearing due to paucity of time.

¶8

In several of these matters, there are office objections.

¶9

As such, all office objections shall be removed within two weeks.

¶10

Subject to compliance of the above, ad-interim/ interim order, if any granted earlier, would continue.

¶11

The affidavit in reply/rejoinder, if any, shall also be filed

¶12

at least one week before the next date.

¶13

Matters in which service of notice is awaited, put up

¶14

after service.

¶15

Matters in which though notices were issued, the office

¶16

could not process the notice due to non-supply of spare copies, the

¶17

Gayatri Shimpi

¶18

.. 2 .. common order

¶19

Petitioner shall supply spare copies for issuance of notice within 14 days, failing which, the matters in which copies are not supplied, would stand dismissed as against the unserved Respondents on the 15^th day. If copies are supplied, office to issue notice to the unserved Respondents, returnable after four weeks.

¶20

7. Subject to the above, list these matters as under:-

¶21

Serial Nos. of matters on the Board	To be listed on	To be listed in the category
4 to 10	09/12/2025	Prioritised Matters
11	09/12/2025	For Compliance
12	09/12/2025	For Passing Orders
13 to 14	09/12/2025	First on Board
15 to 16	09/12/2025	For Disposal
18	09/12/2025	For Dismissal
19 to 25	15/12/2025	Fresh Admission
27 to 48	16/12/2025	Fresh Admission
50 to 70	17/12/2025	Fresh Admission
71 to 105	18/12/2025	Fresh Admission
107 to 114	19/12/2025	Fresh Admission
118 to 125	22/12/2025	Fresh Admission
127 to 156	23/12/2025	Fresh Admission
157	14/01/2026	For Admission
159	14/01/2026	Urgent Admission
161 to 163	14/01/2026	Urgent Admission
164 to 186	15/01/2026	Urgent Order

¶22

Gayatri Shimpi

¶23

.. 3 .. common order

¶24

187 to 197	16/01/2026	Due Admission
198 to 218	19/01/2026	Due Admission
219 to 226	20/01/2026	Due Admission
228 to 234	20/01/2026	Due Admission
236 to 239	20/01/2026	Due Admission
240 to 250	21/01/2026	Due Admission

¶25

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

¶26

Gayatri Shimpi

Jijimol Samraj v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sec. School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijimol Samraj v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sec. School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandrabhan Ramdev Singh vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Education Department) Th. the Municipal Commissioner

Dilkesh M. Singh vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Commissioner

Rajaram Jainandan Yadav vs the Municipal Commissioner

Nandlal Balkishan Sahjwani vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Agnel Anthon Dsouza vs State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Education and Ors.

Hamidabi Sayyed Gani and Anr. vs Mumbai Metropolitian Regional Development Authority Mmrda Throu. Its Chief Town and and Ors.