Bombay High Court

SURESH NAMDEO WAGHERE AND ORSversusLAKSHMAN BABURAO NANEKAR AND ORS

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

Pending the larger Bench decision, the petitioner may file a revision before the State to challenge the order condoning delay.

Summary

The petitioners Suresh Namdeo Waghere & Ors. challenged an order condoning delay issued by the respondents. The central question was whether an appeal before the Sub‑Divisional Officer or a revision before the State was the appropriate remedy. The learned Attorney General argued that a revision before the State was maintainable, relying on the Court’s earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 5716 of 2024. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the issue was still pending before a larger Bench in Writ Petition No. 2103 of 2021. In view of the earlier judgment and the pending larger Bench decision, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Minister, directing that the concerned authority decide it according to law. Consequently, the petition was disposed with liberty to challenge the impugned order in revision.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal before the Sub‑Divisional Officer is maintainable against the order condoning delay
Whether a revision before the State is the appropriate remedy in the present circumstances

Subjects

revision
appeal
jurisdiction
administrative law
higher court
pending larger bench

Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 11236 OF 2026


Suresh Namdeo Waghere & Ors.                                    .. Petitioner

          Vs.
Lakshman Baburao Nanekar & Anr.                              .. Respondents


Adv. Ajay A. Joshi, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for the State.

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

P.C. :


1.       Heard counsel for the Petitioner.

2.       The learned AGP objects to the Petition submitting that the challenge

against the impugned order an alternate remedy of Revision before the State

is maintainable. Particularly he relies upon the Judgment of this Court in

Writ Petition No. 5716 of 2024 dated 21st February 2025.

3.       The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out that the

issue whether a Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer or Revision before

the State is maintainable against the order condoning delay is pending before

the larger Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2103 of 2021.

4.       However, in view of the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.
                                       1/2
6.WP.11236.2026.doc                                           Sufiyan Syed - PA
5716 of 2024 dated 21st February 2025, until the matter is settled by the

larger Bench, at this stage, this Court relying upon the submission of the

AGP permit the Petitioner herein to approach the Minister by filing a

Revision Petition and challenge the impugned order and if such a Petition is

filed the concerned authority would decide the same in accordance with law.

5.     Accordingly, Petition disposed of, with liberty to challenge the

impugned order before the State in Revision.



                                               (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)




                                    2/2
6.WP.11236.2026.doc                                         Sufiyan Syed - PA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…