Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHREEMANGAL ENTERPRISES THRU. T. D. GUPTAversusPRAMOD EKNATH WANKHEDKAR AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The ex‑parte order dated 4 March 2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh hearing.

Summary

Shreemangal Enterprises filed a writ petition challenging an ex‑parte order dated 4 March 2025 issued by Respondent No.7 – Corporation, which confirmed a notice issued by Respondent No.8. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without affording a hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Court examined the submissions and noted that Respondent No.7 was willing to provide another opportunity for hearing. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned ex‑parte order and remanded the matter to the corporation for a fresh decision after hearing all parties. The corporation was directed to decide within six weeks, and the petitioner’s right to challenge the decision in future proceedings was preserved. The writ petition was disposed of as partly allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether an ex‑parte order confirming a notice can stand without affording a hearing to the petitioner
  • Whether the principles of natural justice require a fresh hearing before a final decision

Subjects

  • ex‑parte order
  • natural justice
  • hearing
  • writ petition
  • remand
  • due process
  • High Court of Bombay

Judgment

                                                                                   45-WP-14338-2025 (C) .odt


               Pallavi

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PALLAVI
           Digitally signed
           by PALLAVI
           MAHENDRA
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
           2026.09.23
           12:56:42
           +0530

                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 14338 OF 2025


                              Shreemangal Enterprises Thru. T. D. Gupta          ...Petitioner
                                   Versus
                              Pramod Eknath Wankhedkar And Ors                   ...Respondents

                                                                ...
                              Mr. R.M. Haridas i/b. Ajinkya Jaibhave for the Petitioner.
                              Ms. Vishaka V. Pandit i/b. Avinash H. Fatangare for Respondent
                              Nos.1 to 6.
                              Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.7 and 8.
                                                               ...

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

                                         DATE     : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.


                              P.C.:
                              1.         We have perused the averments in the Petition with the

                              assistance of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The matter

                              requires consideration.

                              2.         Issue Notice to the Respondents, returnable within three

                              weeks. In addition to Court service, private service is permitted.

                              The learned counsel for the Petitioner to file Affidavit of Service on

                              or before the returnable date.

                              3.         Affidavit-in-Reply be filed by the Respondents within a



                                                                1
                                                      45-WP-14338-2025 (C) .odt


period of two weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed one

week thereafter.

4.         The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Respondent No.7 – Corporation passed an ex-parte order dated 4th

March 2025 confirming Notice dated 29 th November 2024 issued by

Respondent No.8.

5.         In the above backdrop, the learned counsel for the

Respondent No.7 – Corporation, on instructions, submits that the

Respondent No.7 - Corporation is inclined to accord one more

opportunity to the Petitioner and after hearing, the parties the

order shall be passed.

6.   Considering the statements so advanced by the learned

counsel for the Respondent No.7 - Corporation, we find that the

instant proceeding can be Disposed Of by passing the following

order, which would serve the ends of justice :-

                               ORDER

     (i)   The Impugned Order dated 4th March 2025 passed by

           the Respondent No.7 – Commissioner, is set aside

           and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent –

           Corporation   to   be   decided   afresh   after     giving

           opportunity of hearing to all parties.




                                   2
                                                  45-WP-14338-2025 (C) .odt


  (ii)   Respondent No.7 – Corporation shall take a final

         decision in accordance with law within a period of six

         weeks from today.

  (iii) We clarify that any decision so taken by the

         Respondent – Corporation shall not prejudice the

         rights of the Petitioner to assail the same in

         subsequent legal proceedings, in accordance with law.

  (iv) In view of the above directions, the Writ Petition is

         Disposed Of as Partly Allowed.




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




                                3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.