Bombay High Court
MAHENDRA SITARAM PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and restored the writ petition, subject to compliance with the requirement to supply spare copies within two weeks.
Summary
The applicant, Mahendra Sitaram Patil, filed Writ Petition No.4816 of 2025 which was dismissed by the Coordinating Bench on 23 April 2025 for failing to supply spare copies of the petition to the Registry. The applicant subsequently filed Interim Application No.11365 of 2025, seeking condonation of a 22‑day delay in filing and justification for the non‑supply of spare copies. The Court examined the explanations provided in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the interim application and found them satisfactory. It therefore condoned the delay, recalled the dismissal order, and restored the writ petition on the condition that the petitioner supply the required spare copies within two weeks. The Court warned that failure to comply would result in the petition’s dismissal without further reference.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 22 days in filing an interim application can be condoned.
- Whether the failure to supply spare copies of a petition justifies dismissal of the petition.
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim application
- condonation of delay
- procedural compliance
- spare copies
- restoration of petition
Judgment
22-IA-11365-2025 (C).odt
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.09.29
10:59:03
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11365 OF 2025
+0530
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4816 of 2025
Mahendra Sitaram Patil ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Sumedh S. Modak for the Applicant.
Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner.
2. This Interim Application has been preferred by the Applicant
who is aggrieved by the order dated 23 rd April 2025 passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. By the said order, the captioned
Petition stood dismissed for non-supply of spare copies of the
Petition to the Registry for effecting issuance of notice to the
Respondents.
3. Mr. Sumedh Modak, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant/Petitioner, has drawn the attention of the Court to the
1
22-IA-11365-2025 (C).odt
averments made in the Interim Application, particularly in
paragraph nos.6 and 7 thereof, in support of the reasons for non-
supply of spare copies of the Petition within the prescribed period.
4. There is also a delay of 22 days in filing the present Interim
Application. Having considered the explanation tendered, we are
satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of
the said delay. The explanation set out in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of
the Interim Application, for non-supply of spare copies of the
Petition is also found to be satisfactory in the given facts and
circumstances.
5. In light of the above and in the interest of justice, we
therefore, recall the order dated 23 rd April 2025 qua the instant Writ
Petition No.4816 of 2025. Accordingly, the Writ Petition would be
restored to the file of this Court, subject to the supply of spare
copies of the Petition to the Registry and complying with other office
objections, if any, by the Petitioner within a period of two weeks
from the date of uploading of this order. List the Writ Petition for
‘Due Admission’ thereafter.
6. It is made clear that in the event the above is not complied
with by the Petitioner within the period afore-mentioned, the Writ
Petition shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this
Court.
2
22-IA-11365-2025 (C).odt
7. The Interim Application is Disposed Of in the above terms.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.