Bombay High Court

AKHIL STARIYA MAHA E SEVA AND AADHAR KENDRA SANGHATANversusUNION OF INDIA THRU DEPT. AND ORS

Decided: 21 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as there is no remaining issue for adjudication.

Summary

The petitioner, Akhil Stariya Maha E‑Seva and Aadhar Kendra Sanghatan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21 August 2026 issued by the authority, which the respondent claimed had already decided the petitioner's application. The court noted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by that order, it may pursue the appropriate legal remedy under the law. Since the order had already been recorded and marked, the court found no substantive issue left for adjudication. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition without addressing its merits. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner's application has already been decided by the authority?
Can the writ petition be entertained when there is no remaining issue to adjudicate?

Subjects

writ petition
jurisdiction
order disposal
procedural remedy
court discretion

Judgment

                                                                             (28)-WP-11669-26.doc

      PANCHAL

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          Digitally
          signed by
          BALAJI
          GOVINDRAO
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 11669 OF 2026
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2026.09.22
          10:31:49
          +0530
                       Akhil Stariya Maha E-Seva And Aadhar
                       Kendra Sanghatan                                 ...Petitioner
                            Versus
                       Union of India & Ors.                            ...Respondents
                                                       ...
                       Mr. D. V. Sutar i/by Ms. Anjali B. Shaw, for the Petitioner.
                       Ms. Dhanashree Bhate, for the Respondent No.1-State.
                       Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mrs. Apurva Thipsay, “B” Panel
                       Counsel for Respondent No.2.
                                                     ...

                                     CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                             ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                       DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.


                       P.C.:
                       1.          At the outset, learned Counsel for the Respondent
                       No.2 has placed reliance on the order dated 21st August, 2026,
                       indicating therein that the Application of Petitioner is already
                       decided by the authority, a copy of which is furnished to the
                       Petitioner’s Counsel.



                       2.          Be that as it may. In case the Petitioner is aggrieved
                       by the order dated 21st August 2026, which is taken on record
                       and marked as ‘X’,       it is always open to the Petitioner to
                       invoke appropriate proceeding, in that regard, in accordance
                       with law.



                                                        1
                                                  (28)-WP-11669-26.doc




3.        In view of the above, nothing remains to be
adjudicated in the instant Petition.



4.        With the aforesaid observation, the instant Writ
Petition is Disposed of, without adverting to the merits of the
matter.




[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                      [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                                2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Dhanashree Bhate