Disposed¶17

Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Thr. Registrar, Amravati v. Ravindra J. Sayam

Bombay HC5 Feb 2026WP/1443/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition withdrawn with liberty; affidavit held apparently defective as deponent was a member of the Grievance Redressal Committee whose order was under challenge; costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on petitioner University payable to respondent within two weeks; disposed of as withdrawn; Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University v. Ravindra J. Sayam; WP No.1443 of 2025; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; decided 02.04.2026 by Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.; challenge to Grievance Redressal Committee order dated 11.07.2024 left unadjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the writ petition permitted with liberty to file a fresh petition through a competent person, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner University to the respondent within two weeks. ¶17

Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Thr. Registrar, Amravati vs Ravindra J. Sayam — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the writ petition, objected to on the ground of the authority of the person who swore the supporting affidavit. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The affidavit sworn in support of the petition appears to be defective because the person who swore it was himself a member of the Grievance Redressal Committee.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner University is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition through a competent person, subject — considering the hardship caused to the respondent — to costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner University to the respondent within two weeks.

¶16

Key takeaways

In view of the permission to withdraw, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) — Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, through its Registrar (petitioner) v. Ravindra J. Sayam (respondent), Writ Petition No.1443 of 2025, decided 02.04.2026 by Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. The University had filed the petition on 24.02.2025 challenging the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee; the respondent's counsel opposed withdrawal, pointing out that non-compliance with that order on account of the petition's pendency deprived the respondent of its entitlement. After an objection was raised to the maintainability of the petition concerning the authority of the affidavit deponent — who was himself a member of the Grievance Redressal Committee, rendering the affidavit apparently defective — the University sought leave to withdraw. The court permitted withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition through a competent person, but, considering the hardship caused to the respondent, subjected it to costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) payable within two weeks. The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for; the merits of the challenge to the Committee's order were not adjudicated.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5229

¶2

1 17. WP 1443 of 2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1443 OF 2025

¶5

SANT GADGE BABA AMRAVATI UNIVERSITY, AMRAVATI, THR.

REGISTRAR, AMRAVATI

VERSUS

RAVINDRA J. SAYAM

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate, a/b Mr. S.A. Kanetkar, Advocate for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 02^nd APRIL 2026

¶12

After arguing the matter for some time, when an objection was raised to the maintainability of petition by pointing out the authority of the person, who has sworn the affidavit in this petition, learned Advocate for the petitioner University seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a fresh petition through competent person.

¶13

Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent opposes this request and points out that the petitioner University has filed the instant petition on 24.02.2025, challenging the order dated 11.07.2024, passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee and only on account of pendency of this petition, the said order is not complied with, depriving the respondent from its entitlement.

¶14

Considering the controversy involved and the fact that the person, who has sworn the affidavit while filing the instant petition,

¶15

2 17. WP 1443 of 2025.odt

¶16

was also a member of the Grievance Redressal Committee, the affidavit itself appears to be defective. Nonetheless, considering the issues raised by the petitioner University, the petitioner University is permitted to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a fresh petition through competent person, however, considering the hardship caused to the respondent, subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), to be paid by the petitioner University to the respondent, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶17

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶18

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶19

asd

Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Thr. Registrar, Amravati v. Ravindra J. Sayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Thr. Registrar, Amravati v. Ravindra J. Sayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajiv Samadhan Multipurpose Society, Hirapur, Thr. President, Shivaji Samadhan Bode vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Magistrate-Collector, Chandrapur

Sau. Asha Indradas Zilpe vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.

Laxmibai Shyamrao Sakhare vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar vs Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar and Others

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh (Lr Kaveri Madhukar Deshmukh) vs State of Maharashtra, Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati and Another

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thr. General Manager, Hingoli vs Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Thr. Presiding Officer, Nagpur