Bombay High Court

SHILA SANJIV PADHYE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 27 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with the questions it raised kept open for the fresh petition.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition (No. 6530 of 2026) challenging an order dated 1 July 2026, which had already been disposed of by a revision application. They argued that a fresh petition had been filed, rendering the present petition without any surviving issues. The Court held that, since the matters raised were already adjudicated, the petition was infructuous and therefore dismissed, though it kept the substantive questions open for the fresh petition. The Court also ordered that the ad‑interim relief granted on 8 May 2026 would continue for one more week to enable the petitioners to seek interim relief in the new petition. The interim application filed alongside the petition was also disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the effect of the disposal of the revision application on the pending writ petition?
Whether the writ petition can be considered infructuous in view of the filing of a fresh petition?
Whether the ad‑interim order should continue to operate pending the fresh petition?

Subjects

writ petition
revision
infructuous
interim relief
High Court

Judgment

k                              1/2                     40 wp 6530.26 as.doc




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   WRIT PETITION NO.6530 OF 2026

Shila Sanjiv Padhye & Anr.                                ....Petitioners
      V/S
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ....Respondents

                              WITH
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5675 OF 2026
                               IN
                  WRIT PETITION NO.6530 OF 2026

Vasanti Madhav Pujari & Anr.                              ....Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shila Sanjiv Padhye & Anr.                                ....Petitioners
      V/S
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ....Respondents
                               _________

Mr. Aadesh M. Patil for the Petitioners.
Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
Mr. Parmeshwar Andil i/b Mr. S.S. Panchpor for Respondent No.5.
                                __________


                         CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                         DATE : 27 JULY 2026.
P.C.:

1.       The learned counsel appearing for Petitioners, on instructions,
submits that Revision Application No.143 of 2026 has been 0nally
disposed of by order dated 1 July 2026. He submits that a fresh Petition
has been 0led challenging the order dated 1 July 2026. In that view of the
matter, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present Petition. Writ

katkam                               Page No. 1 of 2
                         k                                2/2                          40 wp 6530.26 as.doc




                         Petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. All questions raised
                         in the Petition are however kept open.


                         2.       In order to enable the Petitioners to press interim reliefs in the
                         fresh Petition, the ad-interim order granted on 8 May 2026 shall
                         continue to operate for a period of one week.


                         3.       Interim Application is also disposed of.



                                                                                  (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)




                          katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam                                  Page No. 2 of 2
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/07/2026 11:12:56

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…