Bombay High Court

ARCHANA MAROTRAO BADHEversusANUSAYA NARANRAO SAWARGAVE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The review application is dismissed as there is no error in the original order and the parameters for a review under Section 114 CPC are not satisfied.

Summary

The applicant, Archana Marotrao Badhe, filed a review application challenging the order dated 01‑07‑2026 that entertained her writ petitions. She contended that the court had not expressly addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction and argued that a writ of quo warranto could not lie because she held only a temporary charge, not a substantive appointment. The court noted that it had considered earlier precedents on jurisdiction, including Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. and Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh, and recorded a finding that it possessed jurisdiction. It also observed that the judgment in B. Srinivasa Reddy, which the applicant relied upon, was not cited before the court and no error was apparent on the record. Applying the parameters of Section 114 of the CPC and relying on the recent decision in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, the court held that the review application lacked merit and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original writ petitions.
Whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable when the petitioner held only a temporary charge.
Whether the review application is maintainable under the parameters of Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 114

Subjects

review
territorial jurisdiction
quo warranto
Civil Procedure Code
Section 114
temporary appointment
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39730-DB

                                                     1
                                                                           5-ra-137-2026

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 137 OF 2026
                                         IN WP/12563/2022
                                       Archana Marotrao Badhe
                                               VERSUS
                                    Anusaya Naranrao Sawargave
                                                   ...
                Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate for Applicant
                Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent-State
                Mr. Chandrakant A. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent no.3/Mah.
                Nursing Council.
                                                  …..
                                      CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                  AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
                                        DATED     : 31ST AUGUST, 2026
                P.C. :-

                .         Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned AGP for

                respondent-State.

                2.        Review of the order dated 01.07.2026 passed in Writ Petition

                No.12563 of 2022 and Writ Petition No.1800 of 2023 is sought.

                3.        Learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Dixit vehemently argued that, this

                Court though recorded the submission as regards territorial

                jurisdiction, has not discussed and specifically answered the said

                issue. Second submission is as regards Writ of quo warranto. He

                submits that the present applicant was given a temporary charge and

                was not appointed to a substantive post. Therefore, considering

                above, no writ of quo warranto would lie. For this purpose, he rely

                upon the judgment reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 in the case of
                                    2
                                                            5-ra-137-2026

B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka urban water supply and Drainage

Board Employees’ Assn. And Others, specifically paragraph nos.43

and 88.

4.      So far as the judgment in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy supra,

is concerned, the same was not pointed out to this Court. Though on

the point of territorial jurisdiction, there is no specific finding, this

Court has considered the judgments in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.

Vs. Union of India and Anr , reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 and in the

case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR

1961 SC 532. In that view, this Court has clearly recorded a finding

that this Court has jurisdiction and the petition was entertained.

5.      Admittedly, the judgment in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy

supra was not pointed out to this Court, this Court thus finds that no

error on the face of record as such is pointed out. In view of the

judgment in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another ,

reported at 2025 INSC 1080 and considering that no parameters

under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code are made out, this

Court finds that there is no merit in the application. The Review

Application stands dismissed.



     [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J]                [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…