The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Medical Education and Drugs Dept Mantralaya vs Anand Bhaurao Pawar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Medical Education and Drugs Dept Mantralaya vs Anand Bhaurao Pawar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Tribunal order set aside; Original Applications remitted to the Tribunal (Member – J.) for a fresh decision in accordance with law within three weeks from 30th January 2026, with the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 30th January 2026 along with a copy of the order; subsistence allowance due and payable to the Respondents undertaken (by the learned AGP on instructions) to be paid within one week upon submission of the necessary documents/certificates.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order on the Original Applications ought to be set aside, in view of issues raised in those Applications relevant to the decision that had not been dealt with, and the matters adjudicated afresh on merits. +1 more

Court's answer

It was found during the arguments that some issues which were raised in the Original Applications and were relevant for a decision had not been dealt with by the Tribunal.

Ratio / Principle

Concurring with the parties' suggestion, and judging that the contentions raised needed to be addressed on merits by the Tribunal, the Court concluded that the impugned order needed to be set aside.

Key takeaways

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal (Member – J.) for a fresh decision in accordance with law.ratio¶4
Taking an overall view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal is requested to decide the Original Applications within three weeks from 30th January 2026, one Respondent (Mahesh Namdeo Chaudhary) retiring by 30th June 2026.ratio¶4
Keeping all contentions open, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Coram: M. S. Karnik & S. M. Modak, JJ.), disposed of Writ Petition No.16943 of 2025 (with W.P. Nos. 16944 and 16945 of 2025), The State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Namdeo Chaudhary / Anand Bhaurao Pawar / Sandeep Shivaji Deore. Arguments revealed that certain issues raised in the Original Applications, relevant to their decision, had not been dealt with by the Tribunal. Concurring with counsel that the Original Applications could be remitted for a fresh decision on their own merits, the Court set aside the Tribunal's impugned order and remitted the matters to the Tribunal (Member – J.) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, requesting completion within three weeks from 30th January 2026 — Respondent Mahesh Namdeo Chaudhary retiring by 30th June 2026 — with the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 30th January 2026 carrying a copy of the order. All contentions were kept open. The Additional Government Pleader undertook, on instructions, that subsistence allowance due and payable to the Respondents would be paid within one week of submission of the necessary documents/certificates.

2026:BHC-AS:3933-DB

Bhogale 5.wp-16943-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.16943 OF 2025

The State of Maharashtra … Petitioner Versus Mahesh Namdeo Chaudhary .… Respondent

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.16944 OF 2025 The State of Maharashtra … Petitioner Versus Anand Bhaurao Pawar .… Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.16945 OF 2025

The State of Maharashtra … Petitioner Versus Sandeep Shivaji Deore .… Respondent

Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt. P. M. J. Deshpande, AGP, for the Petitioner-State.

Adv. Pushpa Ganediwala a/w Adv. Pradyumna Agrawal i/b. Adv. Anshu Agrawal, for the Respondent in WP/16943/2025. Adv. Ashwin R. Kapadnis a/w Adv. Rutvi Ovhal, for the Respondent in WP/16945/2025.

Mr. Sushil Suresh More, Assistant Section Officer and Mr. Abhay Jage, Senior Law Officer, Food & Drug Administration, Mumbai are present in Court.

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 27^th JANUARY, 2026

1

Bhogale 5.wp-16943-2025.odt

P.C. :

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. However, during the course of the arguments, it was revealed that some issues which were raised in the Original Applications and which were relevant for a decision have not been dealt with by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the parties on instructions of the Respondents submitted that the Original Applications could be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on its own merits.

Even according to us in the facts and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the contentions raised by the parties which need to be addressed on merits by the Tribunal, the impugned order needs to be set aside.

The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal (Member – J.) for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Since one of the Respondent - Mahesh Namdeo Chaudhary is retiring by 30^th June 2026, hence, taking an overall view of the matter, and in the interest of justice, we request the Tribunal to decide the Original Applications within a period of three weeks from 30^th January 2026. The parties undertake to

2

Bhogale 5.wp-16943-2025.odt

appear before the Tribunal on 30^th January 2026 along with a copy of this order.

Keeping all contentions open, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

Learned AGP on instructions submits that if the necessary documents/certificates are submitted by the Respondents, the subsistence allowance which is due and payable to the Respondents will be paid within a period of one week from today.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/01/2026 10:31:49

3