Bombay High Court
Pradeep Kumar Shivnath YadavversusState of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
Holding
The petitioners must file fresh petitions; the present writ petitions are disposed.
Summary
The petitioners Pradeep Kumar Shivnath Yadav, Anilkumar Lalmani Yadav and Vandana Ashokkumar Yadav filed separate writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. While the petitions were pending, the relief sought by the petitioners – referred to as the ‘proposal’ – was rejected by the authorities. The petitioners contended that the rejection warranted continuation of the writ proceedings. The Court observed that once the proposal was rejected, the petitioners must approach the court afresh if they wish to pursue any further remedy. Accordingly, the Court disposed of all three petitions, granting the petitioners liberty to file fresh petitions, and ordered no costs. The orders were pronounced by Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale on 1 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can continue after the relief sought (the proposal) has been rejected during its pendency
- Whether the petitioners must file a fresh petition to seek any further remedy
Subjects
- writ petition
- high court
- disposal
- fresh petition
- procedural law
- Maharashtra
Judgment
Digitally
signed by 82WP-382-2026 GRP.DOC
PRASHANT
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.