Bhagyashri Dilip Golande v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. 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…
- Para 44. 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…
Judgment
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. :-
In both these Petitions, the proposals dated 28th December, 2023 seeking approval are said to be pending with Respondent No.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.
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.
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
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.