Omkar Kamat Sambary and 7 Ors. vs State of Goa Thr Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Omkar Kamat Sambary and 7 Ors. vs State of Goa Thr Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition No.504 of 2025 dismissed as not maintainable; Petitioners left free to pursue the alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 26(1) of the Devasthan Regulations to the General Body, subject to the prescribed limitation; directed to collect the certified copy from the Managing Committee; General Body's further decision to be uninfluenced by this Order's observations.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the Managing Committee's deletion of the Petitioners' names from the 2024 voters' list, given the alternate remedy of appeal under Section 26(1) of the Devasthan Regulations. +1 more

Court's answer

Decisions of the Managing Committee are amenable to appeal under Section 26(1) of the Devasthan Regulations, and in this case the appeal would lie from the Managing Committee's decision to the General Body of the Devasthan.

Ratio / Principle

Because an alternate statutory remedy is available, the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Key takeaways

The Petition is dismissed as not maintainable, leaving the Petitioners free to avail of the alternate remedy subject to any limitation prescribed under the Regulations.ratio¶15
The Petitioners are to collect the certified copy of the Managing Committee's decision from the Managing Committee, without deciding the controversy over when the copy was ready or the effect of collection at the present stage.ratio¶20
Any appeal filed against the Managing Committee's decision would be subject to the limitation prescribed under the Devasthan Regulations.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA (Division Bench: Valmiki Menezes & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.; neutral citation 2026:BHC-GOA:508-DB), Oral Order dated 17th March, 2026 in WRIT PETITION NO.504 OF 2025 - Omkar Kamat Sambary & 7 Ors v. State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary & 2 Ors. The Petitioners challenged the decision of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.3 Devasthan deleting their names from the list of eligible voters for 2024. Holding that all such Managing Committee decisions are amenable to an appeal under Section 26(1) of the Devasthan Regulations and that in this case the appeal would lie to the General Body of the Devasthan, the Court held that the availability of this alternate statutory remedy rendered the writ petition not maintainable, and dismissed it accordingly, leaving the Petitioners to avail of the appeal subject to any limitation prescribed under the Regulations. The Court further directed the Petitioners to collect the certified copy of the Managing Committee's decision from the Managing Committee (expressly refraining from deciding the controversy over when the copy was ready or the effect of late collection), recorded that any appeal filed would be subject to the limitation prescribed under the Devasthan Regulations, and directed that the General Body's further decision, if an appeal is filed, be taken without being influenced by the observations made in the Order.

24 WP 504 2025

2026:BHC-GOA:508-DB

Suzana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.504 OF 2025

OMKAR KAMAT SAMBARY AND 7 ORS

... PETITIONERS

Versus

STATE OF GOA THR ITS CHIEF

SECRETARY AND 2 ORS ... RESPONDENTS

Mr. Parag G. Wagle, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Deep D. Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. G.K. Sardessai, Advocate and Ms. Smrati Bangera, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED :- 17th March, 2026

ORAL ORDER:

The subject matter of this Petition is a challenge to a decision of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.3 Devasthan deleting the names of the Petitioners from the list of eligible voters for the year 2024. All such decisions are amenable to an Appeal under Section 26(1) of the Devasthan Regulations. In this case, the Appeal would lie from the decision of the Managing Committee to the General Body of the Devasthan since there is an alternate remedy available to the Petitioner, under the statute, the Petition will not be maintainable. Consequently, we dismiss the Petition as not maintainable, leaving it to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy subject to any

Page 1 of 2

17th March, 2026

24 WP 504 2025

limitation that is prescribed under the Regulations.

The Petitioners complain that they have not yet received a certified copy of the decision taken by the Managing Committee, though they have applied to the Managing Committee. Shri Sardessai, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 Devasthan, submits that the certified copy of the decision is in fact ready but has not been collected by the Petitioners. Without entering into the controversy as to the date when the same was ready or what would be the effect of the collection of the certified copy at the present stage, we deem it appropriate that the Petitioners should collect the certified copy from the Managing Committee. Any appeal that may be filed against the decision would be subject to the limitation prescribed under the Devasthan Regulations.

If such an Appeal is filed and subject to limitation, the further decision by the General Body shall be taken without being influenced by the observations made in this Order.

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 17/03/2026 17:19:44

Page 2 of 2

17th March, 2026