Bombay High Court
PRADIP BANSILAL PHULPAGAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE CHEIF SECRETARY
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the review petition is allowed and the earlier order is set aside because the factual basis for the original disposal no longer exists, with the parties' consent.
Summary
The High Court reviewed its own order dated 10 December 2025 that had disposed of two writ petitions concerning a proposed amendment to MHADA's recruitment rules. After the disposal, the State Government, through a letter dated 29 December 2025, confirmed that no proposal to amend Rule 5 existed, thereby removing the factual basis of the earlier petitions. The review petitioners argued that, in view of this new information, the matter should be heard on its merits and the earlier order set aside. The Court accepted that the change in factual circumstances warranted a review and, with the parties' consent, recalled and set aside the December 2025 order. The writ petitions were restored to the Court's file for substantive adjudication, and all contentions were kept open. The review petition was disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the change in factual circumstances (no pending amendment proposal) justifies setting aside the earlier order under review.
- Whether a review petition can be allowed by mutual consent of the parties to restore disposed writ petitions.
Subjects
- review petition
- writ petition
- MHADA
- rule amendment
- consent order
- set aside
- administrative law
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS RANE
VILAS
Date:
3 WP(L)-24397-2026GRP.DOC
RANE 2026.09.02
12:47:59
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.26 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5007 OF 2025
Pradip Bansilal Phulpagare ...Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.15381 OF 2026
and
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 24397 OF 2026
Milind Mohan Atakale ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
with
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.28903 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.28578 OF 2026
_______
Mr. Pralhap Paranjape a/w Mr. Manish Kelkar for Petitioner in WPL/24937/2026 and for
Applicants in IAL/15381/2026
Mr. Anand Pai a/w Mr. Sachin Mhatre, Ms. Diksha Shirodkar, Mr. Aman Kachria, Mr.
Sachit Sayyed, Lavanya Panickar i/b Mhatre Law Associates for Petitioner in
RPW/26/2026.
Mr. V. A. Nagrani a/w Mr. Sameer Singh for proposed Intervenors Smt. Rita Joshi, AGP
for State in WPL/24397/2026.
Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. G. P. With Smt Gauri Sawant, AGP for State in RPW/26/2026
in WP/5007/2025.
Mr. R. R. Shetty, Sr. Adv i/b Mr. Vishal P. Shirke for Applicant in IAST/28578/2026 and
for R. No. 6 To 8 in RPW/26/2026.
Mr. Naushad Engineer, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Pranav Narsaria, Ms. Aparana Kalathi & Ms.
Sayali Apte i/b Mr. P. G. Lad for MHADA
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
(At 4.30 p.m.)
DATE: 27 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Pai, learned Counsel for the review petitioner, Mr.
Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, Mr.
Page 1 of 3
P.V.Rane
3 WP(L)-24397-2026GRP.DOC
Naushad Engineer, learned Senior Counsel for MHADA and learned AGP for the
State.
2. In the present proceedings, the review as prayed for is of our order dated 10
December 2025 by which the proceedings were disposed of and more particularly,
in the context of what was observed by the Court in paragraph 7, and also
disposing of Writ Petition (l) No.24805 of 2025.
3. It appears that after the petitions were disposed of on 10 December 2025,
quite surprisingly, a communication was addressed by Mr. Amol Raut, Desk
Officer, Government of Maharashtra, to the Chairman cum Chief Executive
Officer, MHADA, dated 29 December 2025 (Exhibit B) wherein it has been stated
that no proposal was pending of the MHADA for amendment of Rule 5 of the
MHADA Executive Engineers Recruitment Rules, 1997. In this view of the matter,
it is the contention urged on behalf of the review petitioner as also by Mr. Shetty,
learned Senior Counsel for for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 that the writ petition would
be required to be heard on merits as the entire basis of the said order passed by this
Court and subject matter of the review would cease to exist in view of the said letter
dated 29 December 2025, when it is being projected that there is nothing on
record of the State Government as submitted by MHADA in the nature of a
proposal to amend the Rule.
4. We find substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the review
petitioner as also Mr. Shetty.
5. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the stand taken by the State
Government, learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that by consent, the
Page 2 of 3
P.V.Rane
3 WP(L)-24397-2026GRP.DOC
order under review dated 10 December 2025 be set aside and the writ petitions be
restored to the file of this Court to be adjudicated on merits.
6. As agreed between the parties, we accordingly allow this review petition in
terms of the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Order dated 10 December 2025 disposing of Writ Petition (l)
No.36118 of 2025 (Pradip Bansilal Phulpagare & Ors. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors.) and Writ Petition (l) No.24805 of 2025 (Piyush Arun
Kamble vs. Addl. Chief Secretary, MHADA & Ors.) is recalled and set aside.
(ii) The said Writ Petitions are restored to the file of the Court with the
interim relief granted earlier in terms of paragraph (5) of the order dated 20 April
2026.
(iii) All contentions of the parties on the writ petition are expressly kept
open.
7. Review petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
P.V.Rane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.