Sandeep Bhausaheb Shelar vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sandeep Bhausaheb Shelar vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions: (i) leave to amend granted, amendment to be carried out forthwith; (ii) Assistant Registrar directed to file a personal affidavit and reply within one week setting out why action under the principles in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 should not be initiated against Respondent No. 3; (iii) matter stood over to 01 December 2025. Petition not finally disposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conduct attributed to Respondent No. 3, a statutory officer entrusted with statutory duties, in dealing with the Promoter's fresh proposal despite the purchasers' pending proposal and their objections as to missing/forged signatures, discloses a failure to discharge statutory duty in a fair manner and calls for closer scrutiny by the Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The conduct attributed to Respondent No. 3 raises a serious question on the propriety expected from a statutory officer; an officer entrusted with statutory duties must act with transparency and fairness and ensure that no party is prejudiced by deliberate omission or by ignoring material facts.

Ratio / Principle

Where an officer proceeds to consider the Promoter's proposal without examining the purchasers' objections or without satisfying himself about the genuineness of the signatures, it indicates a failure to discharge statutory duty in a fair manner, and such conduct calls for closer scrutiny.

Key takeaways

The present facts, on their face, attract the principle in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 (recklessness, disregard of statutory duty, or conduct unbecoming of office warranting consideration of departmental enquiry).ratio¶4
The Court called upon the Assistant Registrar to explain his conduct and to file a personal affidavit setting out why action under the principles laid down in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 should not be initiated against Respondent No. 3.ratio¶4
The Assistant Registrar must satisfy the Court that his conduct or the conduct of Respondent No. 3 does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Amit Borkar, J., dated 24 November 2025, in Civil Writ Petition No. 11982 of 2025 (with Civil Writ Petition No. 11988 of 2025 and Civil Writ Petition (ST) No. 29872 of 2025), Sandeep Bhausaheb Shelar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.: The purchasers' proposal for registration was pending before the competent authority when the Promoter submitted a fresh application. The purchasers immediately informed the Assistant Registrar of the earlier proposal, sought that no order be passed without considering their pending claim, and alleged that the Promoter's proposal did not bear the genuine signatures of several purchasers (some signatures absent, some apparently forged). Holding that the record showed material that could not be ignored, and that the conduct attributed to Respondent No. 3 raised a serious question on the propriety expected from a statutory officer, the Court observed that an officer who considers a proposal without examining objections or verifying the genuineness of signatures indicates failure to discharge statutory duty fairly. The Court called upon the Assistant Registrar to file a personal affidavit, with reply within one week, setting out why action under the principles laid down in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 should not be initiated against Respondent No. 3, and to satisfy the Court that the conduct did not fall within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court. Leave to amend granted; matter stood over to 01 December 2025.

49-wp-11982-25

1 of 3

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11982 OF 2025

Sandeep Bhausaheb Shelar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

WITH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11988 OF 2025

WITH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 29872 OF 2025

Mr. S. S. Panchpor a/w. Nilesh Choudhari for Petitioner. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State in WP/11982/25. Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for State in WP/11988/25. Dr. Dhruti M. Kapadia, AGP for State in WP/ST/29872/25.

Adv. Iourdu Agnes Merlin a/w. Sara Kazi for Respondent No.24 in WP/11982/25 and for Respondent No.25 in WP/11988/25.

Adv. Foram Chauhan for Respondent No.11 in WP/11982/25, WP/11988/25.

Mr. Mahesh Shirke for Respondent No.12 in WP/11988/25.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATE : 24 NOVEMBER 2025

PC :

Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

The record shows material that cannot be ignored. The purchasers had already placed their proposal for registration before the competent authority. That proposal was pending. Despite this, the Promoter submitted a fresh application. The

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2025.11.25 10:42:50 +0530

2 of 3 49-wp-11982-25

purchasers immediately informed the Assistant Registrar about the earlier proposal and requested that no order be passed without considering their pending claim. They also placed before the Assistant Registrar specific allegations that the proposal filed by the Promoter did not bear the genuine signatures of several purchasers. Some signatures were absent. Some appeared to be forged.

The conduct attributed to Respondent No. 3 raises a serious question on the propriety expected from a statutory officer. An officer entrusted with statutory duties must act with transparency and fairness. He must ensure that no party is prejudiced by deliberate omission or by ignoring material facts. If the officer proceeds to consider the Promoter’s proposal without examining the purchasers’ objections or without satisfying himself about the genuineness of the signatures, it indicates a failure to discharge statutory duty in a fair manner. Such conduct calls for a closer scrutiny.

In these circumstances, it becomes necessary for this Court to call upon the Assistant Registrar to explain his conduct. He shall file a personal affidavit. The affidavit must set out why action under the principles laid down in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56, should not be initiated against Respondent No. 3. The law declared in that judgment is clear. When an officer acts in a manner which discloses recklessness,

3 of 3 49-wp-11982-25

disregard of statutory duty, or conduct unbecoming of his office, the competent authority must consider whether a departmental enquiry is warranted. The present facts, on their face, attract that principle. The Assistant Registrar must therefore satisfy the Court that his conduct or the conduct of Respondent No. 3 does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.

He shall file his reply within one week from today.

Stand over to 01 December 2025.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)