Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

MRUDULA ASHOK CHITALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court directed the MAT to schedule the final hearing within September and dispose of the application promptly, considering the petitioner's advanced age.

Summary

The petitioner, a senior citizen over 65, filed a writ petition seeking the High Court's intervention to expedite the hearing of his pending application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which had been scheduled for January 2026 but remained unheard. The petitioner cited a 2009 circular from the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court that mandates preference for cases involving parties aged 60 and above. The State, represented by an Additional Government Pleader, offered no instructions. The Court acknowledged the MAT's workload but emphasized the petitioner's advanced age, directing the Tribunal to schedule a final hearing within September and to dispose of the matter promptly, preferably through day‑to‑day hearings. The writ petition was consequently disposed of with the said direction.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can direct the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to expedite a pending application on the ground of the petitioner's senior citizen status.

Subjects

  • senior citizen
  • writ petition
  • Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
  • expedited hearing
  • high court direction
  • age preference
  • civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

           Digitally
           signed by
           MAYUR
MAYUR      KONDIRAM
KONDIRAM   ADANE
ADANE      Date:
           2026.09.07
           18:58:13
                                                                          16-WP-11297-2026.DOC
           +0530




                                                                                          Mayur

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 11297 OF 2026


                        Mrudula Ashok Chitale                                    …Petitioner
                              Versus
                        The State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary And           …Respondents
                        Ors


                        Mr. Harshad A. Sathe, i/b Ankita Pawar, for the Petitioner.
                        Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP, for the Respondent-State.


                                             CORAM:        SUMAN SHYAM &
                                                           ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
                                             DATED:        2nd SEPTEMBER 2026.
                        PC:-


                        1.     Mr. Harshad Sathe, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has

                        invited our attention to the order dated 18 th December 2025

                        passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in MA

                        No. 346 of 2025 with MA No. 657 of 2025 in Original Application

                        No. 387 of 2024, to submit that, despite the aforesaid order fixing

                        the Original Application for final hearing on 9 th January 2026, the

                        matter has not been heard and finally decided by the learned

                        Tribunal till date, thus causing serious injury to the interest of the

                        Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged




                                                      Page 1 of 3
                                                  16-WP-11297-2026.DOC




above 65 years. By producing a copy of the circular dated 3 rd

August 2009 issued by the Registrar General of the Bombay High

Court requiring preference to be given to cases where the parties

are all of advanced age, having attained 60 years of age and above,

Mr. Sathe, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a

direction from this Court is called for so as to expedite the disposal

of Original Application No. 387 of 2024.

2.    Ms. P. J. Gavhane, learned AGP appearing for the State,

submits that she has no instructions in the matter.

3.    This Court is conscious of the workload of the learned MAT

and, therefore, it is understandable that there may be some delay

in hearing a case. However, having due regard to the fact that the

Petitioner is a senior citizen, we are of the view that an attempt

should be made to expedite the hearing and disposal of the

Original Application at an early date. As such, without expressing

any further opinion in the matter, we dispose of the Writ Petition

by making a request to the learned Tribunal to post the Original

Application for final hearing within the month of September and

dispose of the same by a reasoned order, if necessary, by holding

day-to-day hearing of the Original Application. Such a recourse, in




                              Page 2 of 3
                                                    16-WP-11297-2026.DOC




our opinion, would be justified considering the advanced age of

the Petitioner/Original Applicant.

4.    Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.




(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)                            (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)




                              Page 3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.