Disposed¶33

Mr. Aslam Maqbool Junaidi and Anr. v. the Chief Executive Officer, Mah. State Board of Wakf Aurangabad and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Mar 2026IA/2017/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; I.A. No. 2017 of 2026 in W.P. No. 12352 of 2018 (Cri.WP/12352/2018); restoration of withdrawn writ petition refused; petition earlier withdrawn and disposed of by order dated 25-09-2025 with liberty to file PIL; P.I.L. No. 121 of 2025 dismissed by order dated 25-11-2025 (Chief Justice's Bench); Maharashtra State Board of Wakf, Aurangabad; liberty to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law; application disposed of; coram Sarang V. Kotwal & Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.; decided 28-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Restoration refused; petitioners given liberty to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. ¶33

Mr. Aslam Maqbool Junaidi and Anr. vs the Chief Executive Officer, Mah. State Board of Wakf Aurangabad and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

18-IA-2017-2026.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by RUPALI RUPALI RAJESH RAJESH WAKODIKAR WAKODIKAR Date: 2026.04.29 15:02:06 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2017 OF 2026

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12352 OF 2018

¶6

Aslam Maqbool Junaidi & Anr. ...Applicants Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakf Aurangabad & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Hanif Shaikh for the Applicants.

¶8

Mr. Prathmesh Kamat a/w Mr. Ishwar Ahuja, Ms. Nikita Lad & Mr. Kayush Zaiwalla for the Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. Anurag Mishra i/b Mr. Suraj Naik for the Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 28th APRIL, 2026

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned Counsel Mr. Hanif Shaikh for the

¶13

Applicants, Mr. Prathmesh Kamat for the Respondent No.1 and Mr.

¶14

Anurag Mishra for the Respondent No.3.

1/3

Wakodikar

18-IA-2017-2026.doc

2. This is an application for restoration of

¶19

Cri.WP/12352/2018. The said petition was disposed vide order dated

¶20

25^th September, 2025, which reads thus :

¶21

“1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that he is fighting for the cause of the community in the area where the Petitioners are residing. Therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition and to file an appropriate Public Interest Litigation in the subject matter.

¶22

Considering this request, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. It is needless to add that, if the PIL is maintainable,, he will have to make certain submissions in that behalf in the PIL.

¶23

With these observation, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn with such liberty and it is disposed of.

¶24

With disposal of the writ petition, the interim application is also disposed of.”

¶25

Subsequently, the petitioners have filed Public Interest Litigation No. 121 of 2025. The said PIL was dismissed by the Division Bench headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 25^th November, 2025.

2/3

Wakodikar

18-IA-2017-2026.doc

After that the present application was filed for restoration of the withdrawn petition. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents, once the petition is withdrawn, it cannot be restored.

¶30