Bombay High Court

PERKINS INDIA PRIVATE LTD IXIA CENTRE AND OTHERSversusTHE REGIONAL OFFICER M.P.C.B. AND OTHERS

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The application for condonation of delay and restoration of the writ petition is allowed, and the petition is restored to its original position.

Summary

The applicants, Perkins India Private Ltd and others, filed a criminal application seeking condonation of delay and restoration of their writ petition (WP No. 324 of 2015) which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. They contended that the dismissal was not intentional and that the original proceedings should be reinstated. The respondent, the Regional Officer M.P.C.B., opposed the application. The Court, after a prima facie examination, found merit in the applicants' contention and allowed the application in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’ and ‘A‑2’. Consequently, the writ petition was restored to its original position and a further hearing was scheduled for 16 October 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the court should condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition.
Whether the writ petition should be restored to its original position despite the earlier dismissal for want of prosecution.

Subjects

condonation of delay
restoration of writ petition
criminal application
procedural law
court dismissal for want of prosecution

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

917 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2561 OF 2026
IN WP/324/2015

PERKINS INDIA PRIVATE LTD IXIA CENTRE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE REGIONAL OFFICER M.P.C.B. AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Tapan Kishor Sant, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the Respondent/State

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants did not
intend to have the petition dismissed for want of prosecution. He refers to the
application seeking condonation of delay and restoration of the original
proceeding.
2. Learned APP opposed the application.
3. Prima facie perusal of the application supports the contention of the
learned Advocate for the applicants. Hence, the application stands allowed in
terms of prayer clauses ‘A’ and ‘A-2’.
4. Writ Petition No. 324 of 2015 stands restored to its original position.
5. By consent of the learned Advocates for both sides, the petition be
heard on 16.10.2026.

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp

917 APPLN 2561.2026.odt 1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…