Bombay High Court
RUPESH BHIKAJI BHALEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that its jurisdiction is limited to ordering the production of the answer sheet and it will not examine its correctness, leading to the disposal of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner sought a court order directing the respondents to provide a photocopy of his answer sheet from an online exam for the post of Live Stock Supervisor. The respondents produced the answer sheet along with an affidavit from the Zilla Parishad confirming that IBIS had supplied the sheet to the Parishad. The petitioner then attempted to expand the petition, claiming the sheet provided was not his. The Court held that its writ jurisdiction is confined to the original grievance of obtaining the answer sheet and it will not adjudicate the correctness of the sheet. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with the petitioner advised to pursue any further issues in separate proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain an expanded claim questioning the authenticity or correctness of the answer sheet after it has been produced.
- Whether the petition can be broadened beyond the original relief of obtaining the answer sheet.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- right to information
- exam answer sheet
- petition expansion
- procedural limitation
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:7808-DB
16-WP-6302-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6302 OF 2024
Rupesh Bhikaji Bhalekar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principle ...Respondents
Secretary And Ors.
——————
Mr. Anand Patil a/w Mr. Soham Powar, Mr. Pratik B., for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Mali AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Ankita Chindage i/b Mr. Pankaj Devkar, for the Respondent- ZP,
——————
Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date : AUGUST 20, 2026
P. C. :
1. By the present Petition, the relief sought by the Petitioner was
for a direction to the Respondents to provide a photocopy of the
Petitioner’s own question and answer sheet. Accordingly, the answer
sheet of the present Petitioner has been provided.
2. The Petitioner now seeks to expand the scope of the Petition by
claiming that the provided answer sheet is not his answer sheet. The
relief sought in the Petition was a direction to provide a photocopy of
the answer sheet, which has now been provided alongwith an affidavit
from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg. The
Arya Chavan 1 of 2
16-WP-6302-2024.doc
affidavit states that the online exam for the post of Live Stock
Supervisor was conducted on 17 th October, 2023 through the Institute
of Banking Personnel Selection (“IBPS”), and after conducting the exam,
IBPS provided the model answer key and Petitioner’s answer sheet to
Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg. Though, Mr. Patil would submit that the
answer sheet must come from IBPS, paragraph four of the affidavit of
Zilla Parishad states that IBPS had provided the model answer key and
Petitioner’s answer sheet to the Zilla Parishad, which is sufficient
answer for Zilla Parishad to produce the answer sheet.
3. In the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot go into
the question as to whether the provided answer sheet is correct or
incorrect. As the grievance in the Petition was limited to the refusal to
provide the Petitioner’s answer sheet, which has now been provided, it
is open for the Petitioner to raise other issues in independent
proceedings, if permissible in law.
4. The Petition stands disposed of.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Arya Chavan 2 of 2
Checking your session…