Bombay High Court

DILIP GENUBHAU KALATE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. PUBLIC WORK DEPT AND ORS

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal and maintain the status‑quo, without deciding the merits.

Summary

Petitioners Dilip Genubhau Kalate & Ors. filed a writ petition challenging a decision, but respondents objected that an appeal was the proper remedy and that the High Court's writ jurisdiction was not available. The petitioners sought to withdraw the petition and request continuation of a status‑quo order, while Respondent No. 8 asked for the status‑quo to be maintained for two weeks. The Court considered the objection and the petitioners' request, and without addressing the merits, disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file the appropriate appeal and to seek interim relief before the appellate authority. The Court emphasized that any further proceedings would be decided according to law. All contentions remain open for consideration on appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an appeal lies against the impugned order
Whether the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition and continue the status‑quo order

Subjects

writ jurisdiction
appeal remedy
status quo
petition withdrawal
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 9438 OF 2026


Dilip Genubhau Kalate & Ors.                                    .. Petitioners

             Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                .. Respondents


Adv. Siddhesh Bhole a/w Adv. Bhagyashri Mangale a/w Adv. Ashwin
Pimple, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Saket More (through Vc) a/w Adv. Anchita Nair and Adv. Fatema
Kothari i/b. Vidhii Partners, for Respondent No. 8.
S. L. Babar, AGP for the State.

                                 CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                 Date : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C. :


1.       Objection is raised by the Respondents that against the impugned

order, the remedy of appeal is available and the writ jurisdiction may not be

entertained by this Court.

2.       Considering the objection, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has

prayed to withdraw the Petition, to file a an appropriate remedy of appeal

before the Appellate Authority. However, he submits that status-quo order

granted may be continued.

3.       The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 8 submits that

                                      1/2
41.WP.9438.2026.doc                                           Sufiyan Syed - PA
he would maintain status-quo qua the mutation entry for a period of two

weeks.

4.      Considering the statement made by the learned counsel for the

Respondent No. 8, the Petition is disposed of with liberty to file appropriate

appeal and he may also pray for any interim reliefs before the appropriate

appellate authority. If such a proceeding is filed a concerned authority

would decide in accordance with law. I have not expressed anything on the

merits of the appeal or interim relief. All contentions of the parties are kept

open.

5.      Petition disposed of with liberty as noted above.




                                                  (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)




                                      2/2
41.WP.9438.2026.doc                                            Sufiyan Syed - PA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…