Bombay High Court
VILAS NILKANTHA PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court extended the benefit of the earlier order to the petitioner and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
Vilas Nilkantha Patil filed a writ petition alleging that he was omitted from the benefit of an earlier order dated 26 July 2018, which reduced the punishment of certain convicts by limiting the stoppage of one salary increment for one year. The petitioner argued that the benefit should extend to him as well. The Court examined the earlier order and the Supreme Court’s decision in Kulwantsinghgill, noting that the earlier order applied to 80 petitions and was only partially allowed. The Court held that the benefit of the earlier order, specifically paragraph 16, should be extended to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the benefit granted to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, who was omitted from earlier proceedings, is entitled to the benefit of the order dated 26 July 2018 reducing the punishment.
Subjects
- writ petition
- benefit extension
- punishment reduction
- salary increment stoppage
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4662
Dilwale 1 63-WP-11327-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
63 WRIT PETITION NO. 11327 OF 2017
Vilas Nilkantha Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A R Syed
AGP for Respondents: Mr. A. D. Wange
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Maheshkumar S.Sonawane
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 02.02.2026
PER COURT :
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding
Writ Petition Nos.7871 to 7922 of 2017 along with connected matters,
the present petitioner was left out and, therefore, the benefit of the said
order was not extended to him.
2. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of by
extending the benefit of order dated 26.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition
Nos.7871 to 7922 of 2017 along with connected matters to the present
petitioner also, particularly the paragraph 16 thereof, which reads thus:
“In the above backdrop and keeping in view the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwantsinghgill (supra), these 80 petitions filed by
Mr. Brahme and Mr. Sontakke, are partly allowed only to the extent of
reducing the punishment from stoppage of one increment for one year with
cumulative effect, to a ‘stoppage of one increment for one year, simplicitor’.”
3. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J ]
Checking your session…