Bombay High Court

GAUTAM PURSHOTTAM BUDRANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 27 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: M S KARNIK S M MODAK

Holding

The Court declined to recall its earlier direction and disposed of the interim application.

Summary

Satish Ramchandra Sangar filed an interim application seeking a recall of the Court’s earlier order directing the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) of Panvel to enforce an order dated 11 April 2023 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The applicant also urged that the SDO consider the decision in Writ Petition No. 4009 of 2018 before proceeding. The Court held that there was no reason to recall its May 7, 2026 order and reiterated that the SDO must act in accordance with that order, subject to any later orders of the Court or legal impediments. The Court noted that the applicant may place the 2018 writ order before the SDO for consideration, but the existing direction remains in force. The interim application was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the Court should recall its order dated 7 May 2026 directing the SDO, Panvel to ensure compliance of the 11 April 2023 order.
Whether the SDO, Panvel must take into account the decision in Writ Petition No. 4009 of 2018 before proceeding with the inquiry.

Subjects

interim application
writ petition
direction recall
sub‑divisional officer
compliance order
procedural direction

Judgment

                                                              31-IA-5663-2026-IN-WP-6056-2026.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


SATISH                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5663 OF 2026
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR                                                IN
                                         WRIT PETITION NO.6056 OF 2026
Digitally signed by
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Date: 2026.07.27
18:16:45 +0530
                      Gautam P. Budhrani                                      ...Applicant

                             V/s.
                      State of Maharashtra and Anr.                           ...Respondents
                                                       *****
                      Mr.Aayush Kedia i/b. Mr.Deepam Upadhyay, Advocate for Applicant.
                      Smt.R.M.Shinde, AGP, for Respondents–State.
                                                       *****
                                              CORAM       :      M.S.KARNIK &
                                                                 S.M.MODAK, JJ.
                                              DATE        :      27th JULY 2026
                      P. C. :-

                      1.     We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant.

                      2.     We see no reason to recall the order dated 7 th May 2026 passed

                      by this Court as the only direction issued by us is to the Sub-Divisional

                      Officer, Panvel to ensure compliance of the order dated 11 th April 2023

                      of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division expeditiously.

                      3.     Learned counsel for the Applicant now says that the Sub-

                      Divisional Officer, Panvel has to bear in mind the decision in Writ


                      Satish Sangar                                                             1/2
                                      31-IA-5663-2026-IN-WP-6056-2026.doc


Petition No.4009 of 2018 while deciding whether to continue with the

inquiry or not. Obviously, the directions issued by this Court are

subject to any orders passed by this Court or any legal impediment that

may arise. The Applicant may place the order passed in the aforesaid

Writ Petition for the consideration of the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Panvel. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Panvel has to proceed obviously

after taking into consideration the effect of the order passed in Writ

Petition No.4009 of 2018 and in accordance with the procedure and

law laid down.

4.    The Interim Application is disposed of.



(S. M. MODAK, J.)                                   (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Satish Sangar                                                           2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…