Kisan Anandrao Pachpute vs the Divisional Manager Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Nanded — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kisan Anandrao Pachpute vs the Divisional Manager Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Nanded — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Civil Applications (No. 3784 of 2026 and No. 11393 of 2022 in WP/8603/2017) allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B', subject to the petitioner removing all office objections within two weeks from 21.04.2026; upon removal within the stipulated period, Writ Petition No. 8603 of 2017 stands restored to its original file and is to be listed for further consideration on 05.05.2026. Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2017 stood over to 05.05.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Application seeking restoration of Writ Petition No. 8603 of 2017, whose registration was refused on 22.03.2022 for non-removal of office objections, deserves to be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

The registration of Writ Petition No. 8603 of 2017 was refused solely on the ground of non-removal of office objections.

Ratio / Principle

The delay in removing the office objections does not appear to be intentional or deliberate.

Key takeaways

The Civil Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B', subject to the petitioner removing all office objections within two weeks; upon removal within the stipulated period, the writ petition shall stand restored to its original file.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J., 21.04.2026: Civil Applications Nos. 3784 of 2026 and 11393 of 2022 in WP 8603/2017 (Kisan Anandrao Pachpute v. Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Nanded), seeking restoration of the writ petition, allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. Registration of WP 8603/2017 had been refused on 22.03.2022 solely for non-removal of office objections; the delay was held not to be intentional or deliberate. Restoration was conditioned on removal of all office objections within two weeks, after which the petition stands restored to its original file and is to be listed on 05.05.2026. The respondent opposed restoration, contending the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to cure the objections. WP 8606 of 2017 stood over to 05.05.2026.

70-CA-3784-26.odt

1

2026:BHC-AUG:17944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

70 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3784 OF 2026 IN WP/8603/2017 WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11393 OF 2022 IN WP/8603/2017

Kisan Anandrao Pachpute

VERSUS

The Divisional Manager Forest Development Corporation Ltd Nanded

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.8606 OF 2017

Mr. V.P. Kadam, Advocate for Applicant

Mr. B.R. Rathod, Advocate h/f Mr. P.K. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 21 APRIL, 2026

PER COURT :

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

By the present Civil Application, the applicant seeks restoration of Writ Petition No.8603 of 2017.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Katneshwarkar, instructed by learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the applicant, submits that the registration of the writ petition came to be refused on 22.03.2022 on account of non-removal of

office objections, and therefore, the present application for restoration deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the application

for restoration, contending that despite sufficient opportunity, the petitioner failed to remove the office objections within the stipulated time. It is

70-CA-3784-26.odt

2

submitted that, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to remove the office objections and seek restoration of the petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the reasons stated in the application, I find that the registration of the writ petition was refused solely on the ground of non-removal of office objections. The explanation offered indicates that the objections could not be removed within the stipulated time due to the workload of the counsel. The delay does not appear to be intentional or deliberate. In the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the matter, I am inclined to allow the application.

The Civil Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remove all office objections within a period of two weeks from today. Upon removal of the office objections within the stipulated period, the writ petition shall stand restored to its original file.

If the office objections are removed within the stipulated period, list the writ petition for further consideration on 05.05.2026.

WRIT PETITION NO.8606 OF 2017

Stand over to 05.05.2026.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE

S P Rane