Sachin Vitthal Ghodke vs the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sachin Vitthal Ghodke vs the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Partly allowed: condonation of the delay in filing the four appeals, with the Additional Divisional Commissioner's four rejection orders quashed and set aside, conditional upon deposit of Rs.10,000/- as cost with the Advocates' Association of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad within two weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeals (against the orders of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed) before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad was properly explained, so that the condonation applications - rejected solely on the ground of delay, without decision on merits - ought to be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

Going through the record, the court found that the matters were not decided on merits: the Additional Divisional Commissioner had rejected the applications for condonation of delay only on the ground of delay, whereas the authority was required to consider the matter on its own merits after hearing both sides.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the averments made in the applications, the delay caused in filing the appeals was properly explained.

Key takeaways

The orders passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 25/02/2022 in Appeal No.29/2018, on 23/02/2022 in Appeal No.31/2018, on 25/02/2022 in Appeal No.57/2018 and on 02/03/2022 in Appeal No.71/2018 were quashed and set aside, and the writ petitions stood partly allowed.ratio¶41
The delay caused in filing the appeals was condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioners deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of two weeks with the Advocates' Association of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) | Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J. | 12 February 2026 | Bundled writ petitions Nos. 1561/2023 (Bharti Kashinath Thopte), 1560/2023 (Rupali Bhanudas Pawar), 5023/2025 (Sachin Vitthal Ghodke) and 5024/2025 (Sampat Bhagwan Ekshinge): The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad had, in Appeal Nos. 29, 31, 57 and 71 of 2018 (orders dated 25/02/2022, 23/02/2022, 25/02/2022 and 02/03/2022), rejected the petitioners' applications for condonation of delay in appeals filed against orders of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, without deciding anything on merits. The court found that the authority was required to consider the matter on its own merits after hearing both sides and that, considering the averments made in the applications, the delay was properly explained. Partly allowing the petitions, it quashed and set aside the four orders and condoned the delay, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as cost within two weeks with the Advocates' Association of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad. Respondents' plea that appeals filed against show-cause notices were not maintainable before the Divisional Commissioner was on record, but the petitions were disposed of on the delay ground. No statute or precedent is cited in the judgment.

2026:BHC-AUG:7511

1 60-WP-1561-23 (modified).odt

This order is modified as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 20.02.2026.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2023

BHARTI KASHINATH THOPTE VERSUS

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2023

RUPALI BHANUDAS PAWAR

VERSUS

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 5023 OF 2025

SACHIN VITTHAL GHODKE

VERSUS

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD AND OTHERS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 5024 OF 2025

SAMPAT BHAGWAN EKSHINGE

VERSUS

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

Mr. Dashrath R. Dhumal, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/1560/23 & WP/1561/23

Mr. Sahebrao A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/5024/25 & 5023/25

Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent/State

Mr. Laxman H. Kawale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP/1561/2023.

Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 And 2 in WP/1560/23.

Mr. Pramod A. Pisal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in WP/1560/23

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

Date : 12^TH FEBRUARY, 2026

SVH

2 60-WP-1561-23 (modified).odt

PER COURT :

By these petitions, the petitioners challenge orders passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 25/02/2022 in Appeal No.29/2018, on 23/02/2022 in Appeal No.31/2018, on 25/02/2022 in Appeal No.57/2018 and on 02/03/2022 in Appeal No.71/2018 whereby the applications filed by petitioners seeking condonation of delay was rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners were challenging orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed by filing appeals before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and for that delay was caused.

Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the appeals were not maintainable before the Divisional Commissioner since they are filed against the show-cause notices. Hence, the Additional Divisional Commissioner has rightly rejected the applications.

After going though the record, it transpires that the matters were not decided on merits and the Additional Divisional Commissioner has rejected the applications only on the ground of delay caused in filing the appeals. The authority is required to consider the matter on it’s own merits after hearing both the sides. Considering the averments made in the applications, the delay

SVH

3 60-WP-1561-23 (modified).odt

caused in filing appeals was properly explained. Hence, I am inclined to partly allow the petitions.

Writ petitions are partly allowed. Orders passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 25/02/2022 in Appeal No.29/2018, on 23/02/2022 in Appeal No.31/2018, on 25/02/2022 in Appeal No.57/2018 and on 02/03/2022 in Appeal No.71/2018, are quashed and set aside. Delay caused in filing the appeals is condoned, subject to the condition that petitioners shall deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of two weeks from today, with the Advocates’ Association of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

SVH