Bombay High Court
President, Yeshwant Rural Education ... vs Milindkumar S/O Sitaramji Jibhakate ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
1-MCA-500-2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 500 OF 2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3489 OF 2020
(President, Yeshwant Rural Education Society, Wardha & Ors. Vs. Mr. Milindkumar s/o
Sitaramji Jibhakate & Ors.)
WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 504 OF 2023 IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 2121 OF 2021
WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 503 OF 2023 IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 2684 OF 2021 AND
WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 501 OF 2023 IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 2683 OF 2021
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 500/2023
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.K. Bhoyar,
Counsel for the applicant/s.
Mr. A.P. Raghute, Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6, 10 to 13,
15 and 16.
Ms Gauri Venkatraman, Counsel for respondent nos. 7, 9 and
14.
Mr. N.P. Lambat, Counsel for respondent nos. 19 and 20.
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Counsel for respondent no.21.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 504/2023
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.K. Bhoyar,
Counsel for the applicant/s.
Mr. A.P. Raghute, Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 9.
Mr. P.N. Shende, Counsel for respondent nos. 13 and 14.
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Counsel for respondent no.15.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 503/2023
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.K. Bhoyar,
Counsel for the applicant/s.
Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. N.P. Lambat, Counsel for respondent no.8.
Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, Counsel for respondent no.9.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 501/2023
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.K. Bhoyar,
Counsel for the applicant/s.
Mr. Rohan Chandurkar, Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. Nitin Lambat, Counsel for respondent no.8.
Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, Counsel for respondent no.9.
Mr. K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondent/State in all the
applications.
1-MCA-500-2023 2
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Heard Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Bhoyar, learned Counsel for
the applicants, Mr. A.P. Raghute, Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Ms
Gauri Venkatraman, Mr. N.P. Lambat, Mr. P.N. Shende, Ms
Mugdha Chandurkar, Mr. Rohan Chandurkar and Mr. C.G.
Deo h/f Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, learned Counsel for the non-
applicants in respective applications, and Mr. K.R. Lule,
A.G.P. for the State.
2] The non-applicants/original petitioners have
raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of the
applications. The learned Counsels for the non-
applicants/original petitioners submit that the
applicants/original respondents have raised plea, that was
not raised during the course of hearing in writ petitions
and, therefore, review is not maintainable.
3] Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel
for the applicants, submits that amongst various grounds,
review is sought on the ground that binding precedents
were ignored, while delivering judgment/order, as also,
the contentions urged were not considered. According to
the applicants, the aforesaid ground is something that can
be said to be an error apparent on the face of record.
4] We find merit in the submissions made by
the applicants. If binding precedents are ignored or that
contentions urged are not considered, it would amount to
an error apparent on the face of record. It is a different
matter whether indeed, binding precedents were ignored
or contentions urged were not considered, which can be
decided on merit, however, as regards maintainability of
the applications is concerned, we accept the argument of
the applicants that for the aforesaid reason, review is
maintainable.
5] The Counsels for the non-applicants then
submit that the judgment under question was delivered in
November - 2022; review was filed in March - 2023; the
Court has not yet granted stay, and despite such status,
the non-applicants' salary, in terms of the judgment
passed by this Court, has been not paid.
6] Thus, for last sixty-three months, the
applicants have not paid salary in terms of the judgment
sought to be reviewed. Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior
Counsel, submits that since review is pending, salary is
not paid.
7] We do not find the aforesaid reason to be a
valid reason for not paying salary in terms of the
judgment sought to be reviewed. If there is no stay, there
appears no reason why should the judgment be not
complied with.
8] We are, therefore, of the view that the
applicants should be directed to deposit 50% of arrears of
salary as would accrue in terms of the judgment under
question to test their bona fides, however, Mr. M.G.
Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel, seeks time to have
research on the point and to make submissions on
whether such order could be passed. Granted.
9] Stand over to 7/11/2025 at 2:30 pm.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/10/2025 18:04:08
