Bombay High Court
SHAGUFTA MD. AMINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR CHIEF SECRETARY DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed Respondent No.4 to decide the petitioner's reinstatement applications within four weeks, keeping all contentions open.
Summary
Shagufta Md. Amin filed a writ petition seeking a direction to Malegaon Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.4) to consider and decide her applications for reinstatement dated 13 November 2020, 17 February 2025 and 25 March 2025 within a specified time‑frame. The petitioners limited the relief sought to the alternative prayer (b), asking the court to order a time‑bound decision. The Court held that it could issue such a direction even though Respondent No.4 was not a party before it, noting that no prejudice would result. Accordingly, the Court directed Respondent No.4 to decide the applications within four weeks from the date of the order, with all contentions kept open, and awarded no costs. No other issues, including the primary prayer, were entertained.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct a non‑party municipal corporation to decide the petitioner's reinstatement applications within a specified time‑frame?
Subjects
- writ petition
- reinstatement
- municipal corporation
- direction
- time-bound decision
Judgment
401-WP-8962-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8962 OF 2025
Shagufta Md. Amin ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Sharique Nachan, with Parth H. Zaveri i/b Momin Musaddique Ahmed, for
Petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondents-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 18th AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The only prayer pressed for, in the present Writ Petition is the alternative
prayer, namely, prayer clause (b), which seeks a direction to Respondent No. 4-
Malegaon Municipal Corporation to consider and decide the Petitioner’s
applications dated 13th November 2020, 17th February 2025 and 25th March 2025
for reinstatement within a time-bound period.
3. We have perused the averments made in the Writ Petition. We are of the
opinion that it would be appropriate that the said representation of the Petitioner
made to Respondent No.4 needs to be decided, keeping open all contentions of
the parties. Although Respondent No.4 is not before us, we are inclined to pass the
said order as no prejudice would be caused to Respondent No.4 in the event, such
representations are decided. Let an appropriate decision after hearing the Petitioner
Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
401-WP-8962-2025.DOC
be taken within a period of four weeks from today, and an appropriate reasoned
order be passed.
4. All contentions are kept open.
5. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
6. It is clarified that we have not delved on any other issues including
prayer clause (a) as made in the Writ Petition.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.08.20
10:37:01
+0530
Page 2 of 2
Shivgan
Checking your session…