Bombay High Court
JAYANTI RAMJI GOHILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The impugned transfer order is set aside as it was passed without hearing the petitioner and was based on forged documents.
Summary
The petitioner, Jayanti Ramji Gohil, challenged an order transferring him that was allegedly based on forged documents. The High Court observed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the impugned order was passed, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court held that the order was procedurally defective and set it aside. The matter was remitted to Respondent No.2 for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, with a date fixed for appearance. The Court also directed that, pending final determination of the transfer issue, the petitioner shall pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000 to Respondent No.3. The petition was disposed of on these terms, with all parties' contentions kept open for future consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner was denied the right to be heard before the transfer order was passed
- Whether the transfer order based on forged documents is valid
Subjects
- procedural fairness
- right to be heard
- forged documents
- transfer order
- maintenance
- remand
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUPALI 907-WP-1422-2023.doc
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.09.07
17:28:15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1422 OF 2023
Jayanti Ramji Gohil ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Ms. Aasha Bhuta a/w Mr. Anssul Bhuta, Ms. Sanika Ghadigaonkar i/b
Bhuta & Associates for the Petitioner.
Ms. Jaya Bagwe for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, A.G.P for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Rahul Gaikwad a/w Adv.Komal Singh a/w Ms. Prerna Shah i/b
Gravitas Legal for the Respondent No.3.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner was not heard before the
impugned order was passed against him. The finding recorded is
that the transfer is on the basis of the forged documents. In such
Wakodikar 1/3
907-WP-1422-2023.doc
view of the matter, the petitioner should have been heard before any
adverse order was passed against him.
3. The impugned order is therefore, set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the respondent No.2 for a fresh hearing in
accordance with law.
4. The parties to appear before the respondent No.2 on 22 nd
September, 2026 at 11.00 a.m.
5. The respondent No.2, after giving opportunity to the
petitioner to file a response and after hearing the parties, shall pass a
fresh order in accordance with law.
6. In the meantime, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on
instructions, graciously submitted that till the issue regarding the
transfer attains finality, the petitioner shall pay monthly maintenance
of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.3, from this month i.e. from
Wakodikar 2/3
907-WP-1422-2023.doc
September, 2026.
7. Petition is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
8. All contentions of all parties are kept open.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.