Bombay High Court
KAVITA JEETU KHEMANI AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Minister’s orders condoning delay and finalizing the revision petition were quashed as they were issued in violation of the Court’s stay order.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a July 22, 2024 order by the Revenue Minister that condoned a seven‑year delay in entertaining a revision petition, alleging the Minister ignored their submissions. The High Court had earlier stayed further proceedings pending before the Minister (Prayer Clause C). Despite the stay, the Minister issued a final order on October 14, 2024, which the petitioners argued violated the interim stay. The Court held that the Minister was bound by the stay and could not proceed with the matter, and that the condonation order was passed without considering the petitioners’ reply. Consequently, both the July 22, 2024 condonation order and the October 14, 2024 final order were quashed and set aside, and the matters were remitted to the Minister for fresh consideration. The writ and contempt petitions were disposed of.
Issues considered
- The Minister’s authority to proceed with a revision petition after a court‑issued stay order
- Whether the condonation of delay order was valid despite the petitioners’ submissions being on record
Subjects
- stay order
- condonation of delay
- ministerial order
- writ petition
- contempt petition
- quash
- remand
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12697 OF 2024
Kavita Jeetu Khemani & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (st) NO. 33221 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12697 OF 2024
Kavita Jeetu Khemani & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12698 OF 2024
Kavita Jeetu Khemani & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (st) NO. 33223 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12698 OF 2024
Kavita Jeetu Khemani & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
1/5
49.WP.12697.2024.doc Sufiyan Syed - PA
WRIT PETITION NO. 12699 OF 2024
Kavita Jeetu Khemani & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (st) NO. 33053 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12699 OF 2024
Kavita Jeetu Khemani & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Adv. Surel a/w Adv. Saakshat Relekar a/w Adv. Amey Deshpande, Adv.
Vandana Bait, Adv. Harsh Mishar, for Petitioners.
Adv. Vivek M. Punjabi a/w Adv. Priyansh R. Jain, Adv. Sahil Panjwani, Ad,
Ritik Gupta, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in WP No. 12699 of 2024,
Respondent No. 2, 3A to 3D & 4 in WP No. 12698 of 2024, Respondent No.
2 & 3 in WP No. 12699 of 2024.
S. D. Chipade, AGP for the State in WP No. 12697 of 2024.
S. L. Babar, AGP for the State in CP No. 33221 of 2025.
Mamta S. Strivastava, AGP for the State in WP No. 12698 of 2024.
V. R. Raje, AGP for the State in CP No. 33223 of 2025.
A. A. Nadkarni, AGP for the State in WP No. 12699 of 2024.
Dr. D. M. Kapadia, AGP for the State in CP No. 33053 of 2025.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Date : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2/5
49.WP.12697.2024.doc Sufiyan Syed - PA
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner challenges the interim
order passed by the Hon’ble Minister condoning the delay in entertaining the
Revision Petition. This Court by order dated 12 th September 2024 in the
present Writ Petition passed following order and is quoted below :
. Heard.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that,
Revenue Minister has passed impugned order dated 22 nd July
2024 condoning delay of 7 years and 56 days without taking into
consideration the submissions of the Petitioner. He draw
attention of the Court to the reply dated 2 nd July 2024 with
acknowledgment of the concerned department. This according
to him indicates that, said reply was before the Ministry however
without considering the same order impugned came to be passed.
He apprehends that the proceedings are kept for order and
prejudice of irreparable cause to the Petitioner, if proceeding
before Minister is not stayed.
3. In the aforesaid facts, arguable case made out by the
Petitioner. Hence, issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on
3rd October 2024. In addition to the usual mode of service
private service is permitted.
4. There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause
(C) till next date of hearing.
3. Learned counsel further submits that although this Court passed an ad-
interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (C), the Hon’ble Minister has
proceeded to pass final order. Prayer Clause (C) is quoted below :
C) Till the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the further proceedings
3/5
49.WP.12697.2024.doc Sufiyan Syed - PA
pending before the Hon’ble Minister bearing Revision No. 2796
of 2024 ;
This Court had stayed the further proceedings before the Hon’ble Minister in
the Revision Petition No. 2796 of 2024. However, the Minister proceeded to
pass final orders dated 14.10.2024 in the Revision Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that once the ad-interim
order was passed, the Hon’ble Minister ought not to have proceeded with the
matter more particularly when the learned AGP was appearing in the matter.
5. Learned AGP on instructions submits that in the file they have an
communication address to the Minister, which indicates that the stay order
has been communicated to the concerned office. Be that as it may, once the
stay order was passed, the Minister ought not have proceeded with the
matter. The revisional authority ought not to proceeded with the matter and
pass final order. Accordingly, the final order dated 14.10.2024 of the
Minister is quashed and set aside. As regards the first impugned order dated
22nd July 2024 of condoning delay of 7 years and 56 days, it is pointed out
that the Petitioners submissions were already on record and the same is
reflected on the Page No. 34 of the Petition. However, the Minister has not
taken the same into consideration while condoning the delay. This fact has
not been disputed by the Respondent also by the State that the concerned
4/5
49.WP.12697.2024.doc Sufiyan Syed - PA
reply filed by the Petitioner is not reflected in the interim order of the
Minister dated 22nd July 2024 condoning the delay. Considering the same
the interim order dated 22nd July 2024 is also quashed and set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the Minister to decide the condonation of delay
application and if he condones the delay, thereafter to decide the appeal.
6. Accordingly, Writ Petitions and Contempt Petitions disposed of.
7. Since the matters are pending for long period of time, the Hon’ble
Minister to decide the matter expeditiously.
(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)
5/5
49.WP.12697.2024.doc Sufiyan Syed - PA
Checking your session…