Bombay High Court

SHRI NITIN SHANTARAM MAHALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRTARY FINANCE DEPT. M. S. AND ORS

Decided: 21 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as it is barred by delay and laches.

Summary

The petitioner, Nitin Shantaram Mahale, filed a writ petition challenging a 2017 order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that denied his claim for seniority as a State Tax Inspector. He sought recognition of seniority dating from his appointment, but the Tribunal rejected the claim. The petition was filed more than six years after the Tribunal's order, with the petitioner attributing the delay to attempts to resolve the matter administratively and the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents argued that the delay was inordinate and that reopening the seniority issue would prejudice other candidates. The High Court held that the petition was barred by delay and laches and dismissed it, noting the prejudice to departmental interests.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is barred by delay and laches despite the petitioner's explanation.
Whether the seniority claim can be entertained after a lapse of more than six years.

Subjects

seniority
delay
laches
writ petition
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
State Tax Inspector

Judgment

                                                                       29-WP-12665-2024.DOC




                                                                                    Rekha Patil

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 12665 OF 2024
                      Nitin Shantaram Mahale                                   …Petitioner
                            Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                       …Respondents

                      Mr. M. D. Lonkar with Ms. A. M. Lonkar i/b Mr. Om M. Lonkar ,
                            for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Kavita Sounke, Addl. G.P, for the Respondents-State.

                                            CORAM:        SUMAN SHYAM &
                                                          GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
                                            DATED:        21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                      PC:-

                      1.     Heard Mr. M. D. Lonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the
                      Petitioner.

                      2.     By filing this Writ Petition, a challenge has been made to the
                      order dated 18th April, 2017, passed by the learned Maharashtra
                      Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in Original
                      Application No. 326 of 2013, filed by the Petitioner, as Original
                      Applicant, whereby his claim for recognizing the seniority from
                      the date of appointment as State Tax Inspector (‘STI’) was declined
                      by the learned Tribunal by giving reasons.

                      3.     The Petitioner is before us assailing the said order of the
                      learned MAT, after apparent delay of more than six years. On a
                      pointed query made by this Court, Mr. Lonkar, learned Counsel
                      appearing for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the ground
REKHA
PRAKASH               “(j)”, which has projected the explanation for the delay. However,
PATIL
Digitally signed by
REKHA PRAKASH
PATIL
Date: 2026.09.22
10:45:12 +0530




                                                     Page 1 of 2
                                                  29-WP-12665-2024.DOC




after going through the ground, we find that same cannot be
treated as cogent and sufficient explanation for the delay of six
years. The ground “(j)” is reproduced herein below for ready
reference:-

      “(j) The Petitioner submits that, no doubt, order and
      judgment passed by the Ld. MAT dtd. 18.4.2017 and, after
      receipt of thereof, the Petitioner tried to ventilate his
      grievances before the Departmental Authorities with a hope
      of positive outcome.          Subsequently, in view of the
      unfortunate eruption of pandemic, the Petitioner could not
      immediately approach this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner
      submits that there is no inordinate delay, much less latches in
      filing the present Writ Petition. Right conferred upon the
      Petitioner, especially, in the teeth of law laid down by the Ld.
      MAT and the consistent approach of the Respondent Nos. 1
      and 2 should not be defeated on account of outcome plea of
      limitation.”

4.    Ms. Kavita Solunke, learned Addl. GP appearing for the State
has also resisted the Petition on the ground of delay.

5.    Considering the fact that the claim of the Petitioner is of
seniority, even if such claim is accepted, reopening the said issue
after a lapse of more than six years would undoubtedly cause
prejudice to the interest of other departmental candidates.

6.    Situated thus, we are of the view that the Writ Petition is hit
by delay and laches. The same is accordingly dismissed.



(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)                         (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                                        {




                              Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.