Bombay High Court
MUMBAI KRUSHI UTPANNA BAZAAR SAMITI AND ANRversusMAHESH NARAYANRAO SALUNKE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous, though the jurisdictional issue is left open for determination in an appropriate proceeding.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging interim orders dated 10 and 25 March 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in an original application filed by Respondent No. 1, who sought to quash an order dated 24 February 2026 and obtain a stay allowing him to continue as Deputy Registrar. While the writ petition was pending, Respondent No. 1 was repatriated from deputation and retired on 30 June 2026, rendering the original cause of action moot. The Court considered whether the writ petition remained maintainable and whether the MAT had jurisdiction to entertain the original application. It held that, because the original applicant’s claim no longer survived, the writ petition was infructuous and therefore disposed, but it kept the jurisdictional question open for determination in a suitable proceeding. The Court directed that the MAT be informed of this disposition and allowed Respondent No. 1 to pursue any ancillary relief, such as salary claims, through a fresh application if required.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition remains maintainable after the original applicant retires and the cause of action becomes infructuous
- Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the original application
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
- writ petition
- infructuous
- deputation
- retirement
- salary claim
- administrative law
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
KONDIRAM ADANE
ADANE Date:
2026.09.07
902-WP-4134-2026 (C).DOC
11:11:33
+0530
Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4134 OF 2026
Mumbai Krushi Utpanna Bazaar Samiti And Anr …Petitioner
Versus
Mahesh Narayanrao Salunke And Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, i/b Ms. Kirit Hakani, Mr. Rahul Hakani,
Ms. Niyati Mankad, Mr. Advait Dalvi, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Om Lonkar, a/w Ms. Advaita Lonkar, for the Respondent No. 1.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 2nd SEPTEMBER 2026.
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Petitioners. We have also heard Mr. Lonkar,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1. None has
appeared for Respondent No. 2 – State.
2. This writ petition has been preferred against the interim
orders dated 10th March 2026 as well as 25th March 2026 passed by
the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“MAT”) in
Original Application No. 228 of 2026. The said Original
Application was instituted by Respondent No. 1 as the Original
Applicant with the following prayers: -
Page 1 of 3
902-WP-4134-2026 (C).DOC
“(a) This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and
declare that the order impugned dated 24.02.2026
issued by Respondent No. 2 at Ex-A to the present
O.A. as illegal and bad in law and the same be
quashed and set aside with all consequential
benefits in favour of the Petitioner.
(b) Pleading the hearing and final disposal of the
present O.A. this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to
pass an interim order staying the order impugned
dated 24.02.2026 issued by Respondent no. 2, with
further directions directing the Respondents to
allow the Petitioner to continue to work as Deputy
Registrar/Deputy Secretary, Mumbai Agriculture
Produce Market Committee, Mumbai or such terms
and conditions as deem fit.
(c) pass any other or such order as this Hon’ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
(d) Costs be provide for”
3. It has been brought to our notice that, during the pendency
of this writ petition, Respondent No. 1 i.e., the Original Applicant,
who was on deputation, has not only been repatriated to his Parent
Department but he has also retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation w.e.f. 30th June 2026. If that be so, the writ
petition as well as the Original Application have apparently
become infructuous. Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, learned Senior
Counsel, submits that the legal issue, more particularly, one
pertaining to the jurisdiction of the learned MAT to entertain the
Original Application in the facts of the case, be kept open to be
decided in an appropriate proceeding.
4. Responding to the above, Mr. Lonkar has also agreed that
the cause espoused by his client in the Original Application no
longer survives. However, he submits that his client should not be
Page 2 of 3
902-WP-4134-2026 (C).DOC
precluded from agitating any ancillary issue, such as non-release of
salary, by availing appropriate legal remedy, if the need so arises.
5. After taking note of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of as
infructuous. The legal issue, as noted above, is however, kept open
to be decided in an appropriate proceeding.
6. This order be brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal
so as to facilitate appropriate order being passed in the pending
Original Application.
7. Respondent No.1 would also be at liberty to pursue
appropriate legal remedy, by filing a fresh application, if any as and
when a proper cause of action arises.
8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…