Bombay High Court

KAMLESH SURESH BINNERversusTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KONKAN DIVISION NAVI MUMBAI AND OS

Decided: 22 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SUMAN SHYAM ADVAIT M SETHNA

Holding

The Court held that no further order is required as an expeditious hearing order already exists, but it urged the MAT to endeavour to hear the petition on the next fixed date.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the High Court’s intervention to ensure that his original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) is heard and decided promptly, fearing that further delay would cause him to exceed the upper age limit for appointment. The MAT had previously ordered an expeditious hearing and fixed the admission stage for 17 February 2026, later rescheduled to 1 September 2026. The petitioner argued that any further postponement would render his claim stale. The respondent argued that the matter is already on the hearing board and will be heard as per the Tribunal’s schedule. The Court observed that an order for expeditious hearing already exists and found no need for additional directions, but it requested the MAT to make an effort to hear the case on the next fixed date, subject to its business. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should issue further directions to the MAT to ensure the petitioner’s original application is heard on the next scheduled date to avoid prejudice due to age limit.

Subjects

writ petition
expeditious hearing
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
age limit
appointment
high court
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                              52-WP-7356-2026 (C).DOC




                                                                Mayur

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


               WRIT PETITION NO. 7356 OF 2026


Kamlesh Suresh Binner                                   …Petitioner
     Versus
The Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division          …Respondent
Navi Mumbai And Ors.



Mr. Arjun Pawar, a/w Mr. Rohan Bhoudave, for the Petitioner.
Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP, for the Respondent - State.


                    CORAM:        SUMAN SHYAM &
                                  ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
                    DATED:         22nd JULY 2026.
PC:-

1.     Heard Mr. Arjun Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, and Mr. N.M. Mehra, learned AGP, appearing for the
Respondent–State.

2.     This writ petition has been instituted by the original
applicant, in Original Application No. 1532 of 2023, with a prayer
to expedite the hearing of the original application pending before
the learned MAT. It appears that, by order dated 13 th January,
2026, the learned MAT has already allowed the prayer of the
Petitioner seeking expeditious hearing and fixed the original




                             Page 1 of 3
                                                52-WP-7356-2026 (C).DOC




application for disposal at the admission stage on 17 th February,
2026.
3.      The grievance of the Petitioner is that, despite the original
application being placed on the board for final hearing, the hearing
has not taken place till date. It is further pointed out that the
original application is now placed on the board of final hearing at
the admission stage on 1st September, 2026 before the learned
MAT. However, according to the Petitioner, if the matter is not
heard on that date, by efflux of time, the relief claimed in the
original application may stand negated if the Petitioner in the
meantime, crosses the upper age limit for appointment.
4.      Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the Petitioner/original
applicant, has therefore, sought further directions from this Court
to ensure that the original application is heard and decided on
merits on the next date fixed.
5.      Ms. Mehra, learned AGP, submits that since the matter is
already on the hearing board, it would be heard on merits on the
date fixed, subject to the business of the learned Tribunal
permitting the same. He has no further submissions to make.
6.      Having considered the material on record as well as the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we
find that, since there is already an order directing expeditious
hearing of the original application, no further order is called for in
the present writ petition. However, taking note of the apprehension
expressed by the Petitioner/original applicant that any further
delay in disposal of the original application may render his claim
stale on account of being overaged even if he ultimately succeeds




                                 Page 2 of 3
                                             52-WP-7356-2026 (C).DOC




in the original application, we request the learned MAT to make an
endeavour to accommodate the Petitioner/original applicant and
hear and dispose of the original application, finally on the next
date fixed, subject to the business of the learned Tribunal
permitting the same.

7.    With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of.




(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)                       (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                                   {




                            Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…