Bombay High Court

KINJAL VIJAY SOLUNKE MINOR THR GUARDIAN VIJAY RAMDAS SOLUNKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Dismissed/Rule Discharged

Holding

The Court held that due to the applicant’s undue delay, the request for modification of the deadline was denied and the civil application was disposed of.

Summary

The applicant, a minor represented by a guardian, filed a civil application seeking a modification of a June 29, 2026 order that gave the State Committee six months to decide the applicant's claim. The applicant argued that the Committee had not decided the claim by the September 7, 2026 deadline for admission to an engineering college, and requested the Court to direct a decision by September 5, 2026. The Court noted that the applicant’s proposal was only received by the Committee on March 24, 2026, and observed that the applicant had approached the Committee very late, a pattern the Court described as common. The learned AGP indicated that the Committee could decide the claim on September 5, 2026 if the applicant approached it without further documentation. The Court concluded that the applicant’s delay precluded any equitable relief and disposed of the civil application, emphasizing that the order should not be cited as precedent.

Issues considered

Whether the Court should modify the earlier six‑month deadline and compel the Committee to decide the applicant’s claim by 05‑09‑2026
Whether the applicant’s delay in filing the proposal bars equitable relief

Subjects

civil procedure
equitable relief
delay
modification of order
court jurisdiction
administrative committee
minor petitioner
admission deadline

Judgment

                                   (1)                901-10120-2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10120 OF 2026
                                 IN
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 6520 OF 2026

Kinjal Vijay Solunke Minor Through Guardian
Vijay Ramdas Solunke                               ...Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                  ...Respondents

Mr. C. R. Thorat, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent/State.

                                 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                            AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                                 DATE    : 03rd SEPTEMBER 2026.

PC :-

1.      Not on board. Taken on production board.


2.      Heard Mr. Thorat, the learned Advocate for the Applicant and

Mr. Patil, the learned AGP for Respondent/State.


3.      This civil application is filed by the Applicant seeking a

modification of order dated 29/06/2026 passed by this Court in

WP/6520/2026, wherein this Court requested the Respondent/
                                    (2)                  901-10120-2026




Committee to decide the claim of the Applicant/petitioner within a

period of six months from the date of the order.


4.    Now, a request is made that since the petitioner has appeared for

CAP round and is allotted the Engineering College in Pune, however, the

last date given is 07/09/2026. It is submitted that if, by that time, the

claim is not decided, the petitioner will lose valuable career.


5.    This Court in order dated 29/06/2026 has clearly observed that

the petitioner’s proposal was received by the Committee only on

24/03/2026. This Court considered this fact and granted six months

time to the respondent/Committee to decide the claim of the

applicant/petitioner.


6.    Now, the ground taken is that the Vigilance Cell Report is received

on 02/09/2026 by the Committee. The hearing is scheduled on

04/09/2026 and in that view, the applicant prays for direction to the

Respondent/Committee to decide the claim of the Applicant by

05/09/2026.


7.    This Court fails to understand the approach of the litigants that
                                     (3)                  901-10120-2026




when the petitioner was expected to file a proposal two years prior to

getting any admission, why they approached the Committee very late. It

is a common tendency observed in all the litigants to approach the High

Court when only one or two weeks remain, conveniently taking the

stand that they are poor and they have no knowledge of the procedure

etc. However, they are vigilant only when they approach this Court and

insist this Court for directions as if it is the Court or the machinery who

are at fault for not passing an order as they desire. It is trite law that the

equity or extraordinary remedies are only for persons who act diligently.


8.    Be that as it may, the learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the

Committee can dispose of the proposal on 05/09/2026 if the petitioner

approaches the Committee tomorrow itself and does not submit any

additional documents for consideration. It is therefore expected from the

petitioner not to raise any ground of not providing sufficient opportunity

in case his validation is decided against him and he decides to challenge

the same.


9.    In view of these, civil application stands disposed off.
                                           (4)                     901-10120-2026




10.          It is made clear that this order shall not be cited as a precedent.


11.          Parties to act an authenticated copy of this order.




    [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]                             [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…