Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 653 Bom

                                                               1/3
                                                                                   25-WP-8811-2021.doc


            rrpillai                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                               WRIT PETITION NO. 8811 OF 2021

                              Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.           ... Petitioner
                                           vs.
                              State of Maharashtra and Ors.                   ... Respondents


                              Mr. Kiran Bapat a/w. Mr. T. R. Yadav i/b. Mr. Avinash H.
                              Fatangare for the Petitioner.

                              Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 - State

                              Mr. Nitin Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Avinash R Belge for Respondent
                              nos. 3 to 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 19, 21 to 33, 35 to 36, 39 to 43, 45, 47,
                              49 to 51, 53 to 56, 66 to 112, 114 to 117 and 119 to 120.

                                                   CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. &
                                                             SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 18 JANUARY, 2023 P.C. :-

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has

challenged order of Reference made by respondent no. 2. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

had filed say and had brought to the notice that the

respondents herein are 'Trainees'. The judgment of this court

Digitally signed by was also referred to, but under wrong premise of petitioner's RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date:

absence, orders in Reference are passed. 2023.01.21 10:22:51 +0530

25-WP-8811-2021.doc

2. Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the

reference is already made and the authority where the

reference is expected to consider all the aspects on merits.

That the petitioner on its own volition did not remain present.

No error has been committed while passing order.

3. We have perused the order. In the order, it is observed

that the petitioner remained absent. However it appears on 15

October 2020 the say was filed by the petitioner referring to

the judgment of this court and that earlier reference filed by

one Mr. Nilesh Sapkal was rejected.

4. In view of the fact that say filed by the petitioner has not

been considered and that the petitioner was shown as absent,

we are not considering the matter on merits. We are inclined

to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner in view of

which the impugned orders of Reference are set aside.

5. The petitioner and respondents shall appear before

respondent no. 2 on 6 February 2023. In view of the fact that

date for appearance is given, it will not be necessary for the

authority to issue fresh notice to the parties.

25-WP-8811-2021.doc

6. The authorities shall after considering the stand of the

petitioner and respondents herein take a fresh decision on its

own merits and in accordance with law.

7. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)