Bombay High Court

BHAU POSHA CHOUDHARY AND ORSversusHIRU PADU HATHMODE SINCE DEC THR HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

A second revision of the impugned order is maintainable before the State.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an order passed in revision. The respondents argued that the impugned order could be challenged before the State, a view also supported by the Attorney General. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that a second revision is maintainable before the State. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the State in a second revision.

Issues considered

Whether the impugned order in revision is maintainable before the State in a second revision

Subjects

writ petition
revision
second revision
maintainability
State jurisdiction
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO.7173 OF 2025

Shri Bhau Posha Choudhary & Ors. ....           Petitioners

                Vs.

Shri. Hiru Padu Hathmode               ....     Respondents
(since deceased) thru legal heirs
Smt. Hirabai Nana Mundhe & Ors.

Mr. Prashant Yadav, for Petitioners.
Ernest Tuscano a/w Mark Dbritto for Respondent nos. 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6 and
1.7.
Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for State.

                                CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                DATE   : 17th September 2026
P.C. :
1.     Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the impugned order

in revision is maintainable before the State.

2.     Learned AGP also confirms the same.

3.     In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of

Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.1, the

Second Revision is maintainable before the State.

4.     The Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to

challenge the impugned order before the State in a Second Revision.


                                                   [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
1 (2016) 2 SCC 213
                                      1/1
43 WP 7173.25.doc                                                     Dusane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Prashant Yadav