Bombay High Court

WAMAN GANPAT SATHE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY DEPT AND ORS

Decided: 28 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is withdrawn, and the period of its pendency is excluded from the limitation period for any subsequent appeal or revision.

Summary

The petitioners, Waman Ganpat Sathe and others, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging a decision of the State of Maharashtra. The respondents pointed out that the appropriate remedy was an appeal or revision before the competent authority, not a writ. The petitioners then sought the Court’s permission to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the alternative remedy. The Court allowed the withdrawal, directing that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded when computing the limitation period for any subsequent appeal or revision. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the parties’ substantive contentions left open for determination in the forthcoming proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition may be withdrawn on the ground that an alternate remedy of appeal/revision is available
Whether the period of filing the writ petition should be excluded from the limitation period for the subsequent appeal or revision

Subjects

writ petition
withdrawal
alternate remedy
appeal
revision
limitation period
High Court

Judgment

Gitalaxmi                                                 51-WP-5735-2026.docx



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                   WRIT PETITION NO. 5735 OF 2026

SHRI. WAMAN GANPAT SATHE AND OTHERS                       ...PETITIONERS

                        Versus

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,                    DEPT.      OF
REVENUE AND OTHERS                                        ...RESPONDENTS

     Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale (Through VC) a/w Ms. Rekha Musale,
     Advocates for the Petitioners.

     Mr. Vivek Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 to 13.

     Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for the State-Respondent Nos. 1, 2,
     4 & 5.

                                  CORAM      : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                                  DATE       : 28th AUGUST, 2026.

Per Court :
1.          Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2.          Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 to 13, so also
learned AGP point out that there is an alternate remedy available of
filing of an Appeal/Revision before the competent authority.



                                      Page 1 of 2
                                 28th AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                       51-WP-5735-2026.docx



3.                 Considering the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for
the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the present Petition and
approach the competent authority to file an Appeal/Revision.

4.                 In the event, such an Appeal/Revision is filed before the
competent authority, the competent authority shall exclude the
period of filing of the present Writ Petition till withdrawal of this
Petition, in computing the period of limitation in filing the
appropriate proceedings.

5.                 Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty
as prayed for.

6.                 All contentions of the parties are left open.




                                                        [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]


                        Digitally signed
                        by GITALAXMI
            GITALAXMI   KRISHNA
            KRISHNA     KOTAWADEKAR
            KOTAWADEKAR Date:
                        2026.08.28
                        19:06:21 +0530




                                                Page 2 of 2
                                           28th AUGUST, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…