Bombay High Court
SHEETAL MADHUKAR DHAYBARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Respondent No.2 must decide the pending proposals in accordance with the procedure laid down in Ratna Ramesh Salunke and render a reasoned decision within 90 days.
Summary
The Bombay High Court heard two writ petitions filed by Bhagyashri Dilip Golande and Sheetal Madhukar Dhaybar seeking approval of proposals dated 28 December 2023, which were pending with Respondent No.2. The State counsel submitted that the authority must follow the procedure laid down in Ratna Ramesh Salunke v. State of Maharashtra, which requires at least 90 days to decide such proposals. The Court directed Respondent No.2 to consider the pending proposals strictly in accordance with that procedure and, if the Pavitra Portal issue arises, to follow the specific directions from the earlier case and have the Management file affidavits. The Court ordered a reasoned decision within 90 days, allowing an interim application for extension if needed. Both petitions were disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether Respondent No.2 is bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Ratna Ramesh Salunke v. State of Maharashtra for deciding pending proposals.
- Whether the pending proposals must be decided within a 90‑day period.
- Whether the directions relating to the Pavitra Portal in Ratna Ramesh Salunke apply to the present petitions.
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Pending proposals
- Procedural compliance
- 90 days deadline
- Pavitra Portal
- Administrative law
- Maharashtra
Judgment
Digitally 54&55.WP-922-2026.odt
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAURI GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2026.03.06
11:13:45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(54) WRIT PETITION NO.922 OF 2026
Bhagyashri Dilip Golande ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents
AND
(55) WRIT PETITION NO.925 OF 2026
Sheetal Madhukar Dhaybar ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents
----
Mr. Amol Ghurde i/b. Mr. Pramod Kathane for the Petitioner in both
Petitions.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for the
Respondent – State in WP/922/2026.
Mrs. P.M. Joshi-Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP/925/2026.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2026
P.C. :-
1. In both these Petitions, the proposals dated
28th December, 2023 seeking approval are said to be pending with
Respondent No.2.
2. The learned Addl. GP and AGP submit that the said
Authority will have to consider the directions issued and the law
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 2
54&55.WP-922-2026.odt
laid down in Ratna Ramesh Salunke and Ors. v/s. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.1 It is submitted that the procedure laid down
in Ratna Ramesh Salunke (supra) would be followed and the
authorities would require at least 90 days’ time to decide the
proposals.
3. In view of the above, both these Petitions are disposed
off with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the pending
proposals strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in law.
If the issue of Pavitra Portal is involved in any of these matters, the
directions set out in Ratna Ramesh Salunke (supra) shall be
followed and the Management would be called upon to participate
in the hearing by filing affidavits pertaining to each of these cases.
All grounds are kept open to be considered.
4. We would expect Respondent No.2 to arrive at a
reasoned decision in both these cases, within a period of 90 days
from today. If the Authority finds itself short of time, liberty is
granted to move an Interim Application seeking extension of time.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1 Judgment dated 16th October, 2025 in Writ Petition No.6949 of 2025 and connected matters.
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 2
Checking your session…