Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ANUSAYA ANIL GAUD @ ANUSAYA RAFIQ SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The court condoned the 173‑day delay and allowed the application for restoration of the writ petition, subject to payment of the stipulated cost.

Summary

The applicant filed an interim application seeking restoration of Writ Petition No. 4824 of 2015, which had been dismissed for non‑prosecution on 7 March 2026. The application was presented 173 days after the dismissal, raising a question of whether such delay could be condoned. The applicant offered to pay a cost of Rs.5,000 to the Kirtikar Law Library within two weeks of the order as an undertaking to the court. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the condonation. The bench, after considering the undertaking, held that the delay could be condoned provided the cost was paid, and allowed the application for restoration of the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was reinstated subject to the stipulated payment.

Issues considered

  • Whether a delay of 173 days in filing an application for restoration of a dismissed writ petition can be condoned.
  • Whether the applicant's undertaking to pay a cost of Rs.5,000 suffices as a basis for condoning the delay.

Subjects

  • restoration of writ petition
  • condonation of delay
  • non‑prosecution
  • cost payment
  • High Court of Bombay

Judgment

                                  Sbw                                                   24-IA-3384-2026.doc




                                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3384 of 2026

                                                                     IN

                                                     WRIT PETITION NO.4824 OF 2015

                             Anusaya Anil Gaud @ Anusaya Rafiq Shaikh                    … Applicant

                                      V/s.

                             The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                             … Respondents




                             Mr. Pulkeshi Gaikwad a/w Adv. S. Patel, Mr. Animish D i/by Mr. Dinesh D.
                             Tiwari & Associates for the Applicant.
                             Smt. Madhavi H. Mhatre, APP, for the Respondent-State.


                                                                CORAM :     A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                                            KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                                   DATE :   24th September, 2026

                             P.C.:-

                             1)              This is an Application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 4824

                             of 2015, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by Order dated 7 th

                             March, 2026.

                                             There is a delay of 173 days in preferring present Application.

                             2)              Learned    Advocate    for   Applicant   submitted    that,      for

                             condonation of the said delay, the Applicant will pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to


                                                                                                              1/2
          Digitally signed
          by SANDHYA
SANDHYA   BHAGU
BHAGU     WADHWA
WADHWA    Date:
          2026.10.03
          12:38:13 +0530
     Sbw                                                 24-IA-3384-2026.doc

the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai, within a period of two weeks

from the date of uploading of the present Order on the official website of

the High Court of Bombay. The said statement is accepted as an

undertaking given to this Court.

3)            Subject to payment of aforesaid cost within stipulated period as

noted above, delay is condoned and Application is allowed in terms of

prayer clauses (a) and (b).



           (KAMAL KHATA, J.)                  (A.S. GADKARI, J.)




                                                                               2/2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.