Bombay High Court
VISHNU VAMAN NIMSE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT THRO ITS SECRETARY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court set aside the Registrar’s order and restored the writ petition, subject to removal of the office objections within three weeks.
Summary
The petitioners, Vishnu Vaman Nimse & Ors., filed Writ Petition (St.) No.11420 of 2025 seeking payment of their old pension. The Registrar (Judicial‑I) raised office objections, gave two weeks for compliance, and upon non‑removal rejected the petition on 7 May 2025. The petitioners filed an interim application requesting that the Registrar's order be set aside and the writ petition be restored. The Court noted that the failure to remove objections was due to the petitioners' advocates and that the petitioners, being lay persons, would suffer grave prejudice if the petition remained dismissed. Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim application, recalled the Registrar’s order, and restored the writ petition, directing the petitioners to remove the pending objections within three weeks. Failure to do so will result in the petition’s rejection without further reference to the Court.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Registrar rejecting the writ petition for non‑removal of office objections can be set aside.
- Whether the writ petition can be restored despite the procedural default.
Subjects
- writ petition
- office objections
- pension
- interim relief
- restoration of petition
- procedural default
- high court
Judgment
902-ia-13325-2025.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13325 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.11420 OF 2025
Vishnu Vaman Nimse & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Deptt. Of Rural ...Respondents
Development Thru its Secretary
----------
Madhur Pophale, Thru V.C. for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ashish S. Gaikwad with Anirudh Rote and Sagar G. Bhoir for the
Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Pooja Joshi Deshpande, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6.
R.S. Pawar for Respondent No.3 – State.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORDER :
1. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners / Applicants has sought permission to correct the Writ
JITENDRA
SHANKAR
NIJASURE Petition number in prayer (B) to the Interim Application and
Digitally signed by
JITENDRA
SHANKAR
NIJASURE
Date: 2026.02.05
11:45:31 +0530 replacing the order in Exhibit ‘A’ with the correct order.
1/4
902-ia-13325-2025.doc
2. Permission granted. The learned Counsel for the
Petitioner shall correct the prayer Clause (B) by replacing “ Writ
Petition St. No.11422 of 2025” with “Writ Petition St. No.11420 of
2025” and the Order in Exhibit ‘A’ with the correct Order forthwith.
3. By this Interim Application, the Applicants have sought
setting aside of the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) in Writ
Petition (St.) No.11420 of 2025 and for allowing the Applicants to
remove the office objections.
4. The Applicants have stated that upon filing of the Writ
Petition, the objections had been raised and the matter had been
listed on 2/3rd April, 2025 for removal of office objections. The
matter had again been listed on 22nd April, 2025 on the board of
Registrar, (Judicial-I) for removal of office objections and by Order
dated 22nd April 2025, the Registrar (Judicial-I) had granted two
weeks time for removal of office objections which had not been
removed. By Order dated 7th May, 2025 the Registrar (Judicial – I)
rejected the Writ Petition for non-compliance of office objections. The
office objections could not be removed and accordingly, the Writ
Petition had been rejected.
2/4
902-ia-13325-2025.doc
5. The Applicants state that they got knowledge of the
rejection of the Writ Petition upon taking search of the matter.
Accordingly, the present Interim Application has been filed for
restoration of the Writ Petition.
6. Having considered the averments in the Interim
Application as well as noting that the Writ Petition came to be
rejected for non removal of office objections, the Applicants being lay
persons, should not be made to suffer particularly when the default
in removal of office objections is at the hands of the Applicants’
Advocates. The Applicants have in the Writ Petition which has come
to be rejected sought for payment of Old Pension and hence would
suffer grave prejudice by non restoration of the Writ Petition.
7. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
(i) The Interim Application is allowed.
(ii) The Writ Petition (St) No.11420 of 2025 is
restored by recalling Order dated 7th May, 2025
passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I).
3/4
902-ia-13325-2025.doc
(iii) The Petitioners shall remove the pending
office objections, within a period of three weeks from
today.
(iv) Non removal of office objections, would
result in the rejection of the Writ Petition without
further reference to this Court.
(v) The Interim Application is accordingly
disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.
[ ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ]
4/4
Checking your session…