Bombay High Court
Vandana Ashokkumar YadavversusState of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners must file fresh petitions and the present writ petitions are disposed.
Summary
Petitioners Pradeep Kumar Shivnath Yadav, Anilkumar Lalmani Yadav and Vandana Ashokkumar Yadav filed three writ petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging a proposal of the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. During the pendency of the petitions, the proposal was rejected by the authorities. The petitioners sought relief on the basis of the now‑rejected proposal. The Court considered whether the writ petitions could continue after the underlying proposal ceased to exist. It held that the petitioners, if aggrieved, must file fresh petitions and the present writ petitions could not be entertained. Accordingly, the Court disposed of all three petitions, granting liberty to adopt any appropriate remedy available in law. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petitions can be entertained after the underlying proposal has been rejected
- Whether the petitioners are required to file fresh petitions for relief
Subjects
- writ petition
- fresh petition
- disposal
- State of Maharashtra
- civil procedure
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
82WP-382-2026 GRP.DOC
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS RANE
RANE Date:
2026.09.03
19:48:03
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.382 OF 2026
Pradeep Kumar Shivnath Yadav. ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.785 OF 2026
Anilkumar Lalmani Yadav ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3023 OF 2026
Vandana Ashokkumar Yadav ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Samarth Moray with Abhishek Jani i/b. Shivani Shinde, for Petitioners.
Ms. Pushpa Yadav, for Respondent / BMC.
Mr. S. B. Gore, AGP for the State in WP 382/26.
Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for the State in WP 785/26.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for the State in WP 3023/26
Mr. Sagar Amrut Rane, for Respondent Nos.7& 8.
_________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 01 September 2026.
P.C.
1. We are informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency
of these petitions, the proposal has been rejected.
2. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioners, if aggrieved,
are required to file fresh petitions. Thus, keeping open all contentions of the parties, we
dispose of these petitions with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy as may be available in
law.
3. Disposed of. No costs.
(Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 1 of 1
1 September 2026
P.V.Rane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.