Atul Parmar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Nov 2025
- Bench
- AARTI SATHE, G S KULKARNI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1269 OF 2025 Atul Parmar & Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Petitioners ...Respondents _________ Mr. Sagar Batavia for Petitioners. Mr. Atul Vanarse, AGP for State/Respondent No.1. Mr. Anoop Patil for Respondent No.2/AGRC. Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal with Ms. Aarushi Yadav for Respondent No.3/SRA. __________ CORAM: DATE: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. 13 NOVEMBER 2025. P.C.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the only relief which reads thus:- That a writ of certiorari, writ of mandamus or any other
a) appropriate writ, order or direction be issued calling for the records and after examining the legality and proprieties of the matter, be ordered and directed respondent No.2 committee to take hearing of interim relief on Petitioner’s Application in time bound schedule.
Having perused the averments as made in the petition, it is in the interest of justice that respondent no.2 is directed to hear the interim application filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from today. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 13 November 2025
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Nov 2025. The bench was AARTI SATHE, G S KULKARNI.
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.