Bombay High Court

SHRI. GOVIND KRISHNA SHELARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ITS CHIEF SEC. AND ORS

Decided: 2 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court allowed the interim application and restored the dismissed writ petition, exercising discretion to indulge the petitioner’s circumstances.

Summary

The petitioner, Govind Krishna Shelar, filed an interim application seeking restoration of his writ petition (No. 5951 of 2016) which had been dismissed for non‑prosecution after he failed to engage a new lawyer as ordered on 7 December 2018. The dismissal was self‑operating, and the petition remained pending with a reply affidavit on record. The petitioner explained that his poor financial condition and the impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic prevented him from securing counsel within the stipulated time. The Court, acknowledging the considerable delay but persuaded by the hardship pleaded, exercised its discretion to show indulgence. Accordingly, the application was allowed, the writ petition was restored, and it was listed for further hearing on 30 September 2026.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition dismissed for non‑prosecution can be restored on the ground of the petitioner’s inability to engage counsel due to financial hardship and the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Subjects

restoration of writ
non‑prosecution dismissal
financial hardship
COVID‑19 pandemic
court discretion
interim application

Judgment

                                                               1
                                                                                        9-ia-6781-2026.doc

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6781 OF 2026
                                                           IN
                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 5951 OF 2016

                      Govind Krishna Shelar                                    …Petitioner
                            Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra and Others                      …Respondents

                      Mr. Viraj Shelatkar a/w. Mr. Ganesh Gole, Mr. Kunjan Makwana, for
                      the Applicant/Petitioner
                      Smt. Pooja Joshi-Deshpande, AGP, for the State.
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR                                              CORAM      : MANISH PITALE AND
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
                                                                  SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Date: 2026.09.02
15:08:38 +0530                                       DATE       : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
                      P.C. :

                      1.          By this application, the applicant (original petitioner) is seeking

                      restoration of Writ Petition No. 5951 of 2016, which stood dismissed

                      for non-prosecution as per order dated 07.12.2018 passed by this

                      Court.


                      2.          A perusal of the said order shows that it was a self-operating

                      order directing that if the petitioner failed to engage another lawyer

                      before the next date of listing, the petition would stand dismissed for

                      non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. It appears that

                      the applicant/petitioner could not engage another lawyer, and the said

                      order dated 07.12.2018 came into effect, leading to dismissal of the

                      Vishal Parekar                                                                         ….1
                                        2
                                                              9-ia-6781-2026.doc


writ petition. At the stage when the writ petition stood dismissed for

non-prosecution, it was pending consideration and reply affidavit was

also on record.


3.          The applicant has stated the reasons in the present application

in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the application. These include the poor

financial condition of the applicant, due to which he could not engage

an advocate within the stipulated period of time. Reference is also

made to the period when the COVID-19 pandemic had hit the nation.


4.          Considering the reasons stated in the application, although the

delay in moving the present application is considerable, we are

inclined to show indulgence to the applicant and to allow the present

application.


5.          In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of

prayer clauses (a) and (b). Consequently, the writ petition stands

restored.


6.          List the restored Writ Petition No. 5951 of 2016 for further

consideration on 30th September, 2026 under the caption "For

Directions."


                 (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)        (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Vishal Parekar                                                                     ….2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…