Bombay High Court

ANKUSH KASHINNATH GOPHANEversusSHANKAR TUKARAM NIKAM AND ORS

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed as Withdrawn

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a revision before the Minister.

Summary

The petitioner challenged an order dated 7 November 2025 of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune, which rejected a revision application on the ground of non‑maintainability, asserting that an interim order condoning delay could not be reviewed before the Commissioner. The State’s Additional Government Pleader argued that the impugned order could be challenged before the State, i.e., before the Minister. The High Court, after considering the submissions, allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and granted liberty to file a revision petition before the Minister. No merits of the dispute were addressed. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the Minister for relief.

Issues considered

Whether an interim order condoning delay is maintainable in a revision before the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
Whether the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition and seek review of the order before the Minister.

Subjects

revision
administrative law
jurisdiction
interim order
withdrawal of writ petition
ministerial review

Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 10784 OF 2026


Ankush Kashinath Gophane                                 .. Petitioner

           Vs.
Shankar Tukaram Nikam & Anr.                             .. Respondents


Adv. Mrunal Ghodke a/w Adv. Aniket Nangare, for the Petitioner.
Y. D. Patil, a/w Y. S. Kochare – B Panel, AGP for the State.

                                  CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                  Date : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C. :


1.       Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.       The Petitioner challenges the order dated 7th November 2025 passed

by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune, whereby the Divisional

Commissioner has rejected the Revision Application on the ground that the

revision is not maintainable.

3.       The learned Additional Divisional Commissioner has held that an

interim order condoning delay cannot be challenge in a revision before her.

The learned AGP points out that the impugned order can be challenged

before the State.

4.       Considering the submissions of the learned AGP, the learned Counsel
                                        1/2
4.WP.10784.2026.doc                                           Sufiyan Syed - PA
appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present Petition to

challenge      the    order   impugned    before   the   Additional    Divisional

Commissioner by filing the Revision Petition, before the Minister.

5.     Considering the submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as

withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order passed by the SDO dated 6 th

December 2023 before the Hon’ble Minster. In the event, the Revision

Petition is filed, the concerned Minister to decide the same in accordance

with law.

6.     The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that there is

urgency in the matter and that he prays for interim relief. The Petition may

apply for the same before the minister and if such an application is filed, the

minister would decide the same as expeditiously as possible. I have not

expressed anything on the merits of the matter.

7.     Accordingly, Writ Petition disposed of with liberty as observed above.




                                                   (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)




                                         2/2
4.WP.10784.2026.doc                                             Sufiyan Syed - PA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…