Disposed¶14

Rajendra Gulab Bhadage and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC26 Nov 2025WP/11541/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim protection; Mapari license renewal refused on crossing age of 58; bye law bar after age limit 58 held unjustified in earlier interim order; parity with Harishkumar Ramanlal Oza Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 6343 of 2013, order dated 17-11-2014); direction to consider renewal without age limit subject to fitness certificate within one week; Respondent No.3; State of Maharashtra; Aurangabad Bench; notice returnable 22-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection: Respondent No.3 to consider renewal applications without insisting on the age limit of 58, subject to production of a fitness certificate within one week; notice issued to Respondent No.3, returnable on 22nd December, 2025 ¶14

Rajendra Gulab Bhadage and Another vs State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3 may refuse renewal of the Petitioners' licenses as Maparis on the sole ground that they have crossed the age of 58

¶10

Court's answer

Interim protection granted: Respondent No.3 directed to consider the Petitioners' applications for renewal of license without insisting upon the age limit of 58, on parity with the interim order in Writ Petition No. 6343 of 2013 and two other similarly situated matters

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The interim direction is conditional on the Petitioners producing a fitness certificate: if produced within one week, Respondent No.3 is to consider issuing the license in their favour within a further one week

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad (Kankanwadi and Venegavkar, JJ.) granted interim protection in a writ petition by two Maparis whose licenses with Respondent No.3 were not renewed on the ground that they had crossed the age of 58. Relying on the interim order dated 17th November, 2014 in Writ Petition No. 6343 of 2013 (Harishkumar Ramanlal Oza and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Department of Marketing, Central Building, Pune and Ors.), wherein the bye laws placing a bar on licensing a Mapari after crossing the age limit of 58 were observed to be unjustified and interim protection was granted, and noting that the Petitioners are similarly situated with interim protection granted in two other matters as well, the Court directed Respondent No.3 to consider the Petitioners' renewal applications without insisting upon the age limit, subject to the Petitioners producing a fitness certificate; if produced within one week, it was to be considered for issuing the license within a further one week. Notice to Respondent No.3, returnable on 22nd December, 2025.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

913 WRIT PETITION NO. 11541 OF 2025

¶3

RAJENDRA GULAB BHADAGE AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶4

Mr. U. A. Bhadgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State

¶5

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 26^th NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

P. C. :-

¶7

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶8

Learned AGP waives notice on behalf of Respondent

¶9

Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

The Petitioners are working as Maparis with Respondent No.3. They were issued license for doing the same work by Respondent No.3. When the Petitioners had applied for the renewal of their licenses as usual, their licenses have not been renewed on the ground that they have crossed the age of 58. Relying upon the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 6343 of 2013

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

913 WP 11541.2025.odt

¶13

(Harishkumar Ramanlal Oza and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Department of Marketing, Central Building, Pune and Ors.), dated 17^th November, 2014, wherein it has been observed that the bye laws placing the bar of license to a Mapari after crossing age limit of 58 has been held to be unjustified. Interim protection was granted. The Petitioners are similarly situated and in other two matters also, interim protection has been granted. Therefore, we are also inclined to grant the interim protection and direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the applications for renewal of license of the Petitioners without insisting upon the age limit, however, subject to the Petitioners producing fitness certificate. If the Petitioners produced the certificate within a period of one week, then it should be considered by Respondent No.3 for issuing license in their favour within a period of further one week.

¶14

Issue notice to Respondent No.3 to be made returnable on 22^nd December, 2025.

¶15

[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶16

ssp

¶17

2 of 2

¶18

913 WP 11541.2025.odt

Rajendra Gulab Bhadage and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Gulab Bhadage and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Purushottam Kakasaheb Dode and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Arun Rumsing Pardeshi vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Pranil Sharanappa Nagure and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Prakash Kundlik Aalne vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Mohd. Zafar Mohd. Rafiyoddin vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sudhakar Uttamrao Kingre vs the State of Maharashtra and Others