[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Govind Warghade vs Prakash Chandrakant Jagtap And Ors on 25 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:14170
8-ia2500-2021 with ia19333-2022.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2500 OF 2021
IN
ATUL WRIT PETITION NO.2739 OF 2011
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Prakash Chandrakant Jagtap & Ors. ... Applicants
Date: 2026.03.25
17:41:09 +0530 In the matter between
Prakash Chandrakant Jagtap & Ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Others ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.19133 OF 2022
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2500 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2739 OF 2011
Chandrakant Govind Warghade ... Applicant
In the matter between
Prakash Chandrakant Jagtap & Ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sugandh
B. Deshmukh, Mr. Irvin D'Souza and Mr. Vaibhav
Thorave for the petitioners/applicants in IA/2500/
2021.
Mr. A.V. Hardas with Mr. Mrinal Shelar for the applicant
in IA/19133/2022.
Smt. Mamta Shrivastav, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-
State.
Mr. Chetan Jagare with Mr. Prasad Avhad for
respondent No.4-APMC.
Mr. R.S. Mirpury for respondent No.5 in
IA/2500/2021.
1
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 22:04:14 :::
8-ia2500-2021 with ia19333-2022.doc
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 25, 2026
P.C.:
1. The applicants have approached this Court by filing Interim
Application No.2500 of 2021. Their request is simple in form but
serious in effect. They are asking this Court to recall its earlier
order dated 29 January 2016, by which Writ Petition No.2739 of
2011 was permitted to be withdrawn. This request is not made for
the entire petition, but specifically in relation to applicant Nos.2, 6,
7, 8 and 9, who were original petitioners.
2. The case of the applicants is based on the background of the
dispute. The writ petition itself had arisen from proceedings under
the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1963. Those proceedings began from an audit
report, which pointed out certain irregularities. Based on that
report, the competent authority started proceedings for calculation
of damages and for fixing responsibility upon members of the
Managing Committee. After due process, responsibility was fixed
against certain persons, including the petitioners. The petitioners,
feeling aggrieved by such fixing of responsibility, filed an appeal.
That appeal was allowed. As a result, the liability fastened upon
them was set aside. According to the applicants, at least for them,
the issue had reached finality.
3. However, the matter did not end there. Another group of
Managing Committee members, who were also affected, chose to
challenge the same order of fixing responsibility by filing a
8-ia2500-2021 with ia19333-2022.doc
separate appeal. That appeal came to be dismissed. Hence another
group took the matter further by approaching the Director of
Marketing. The Director allowed their appeal. More importantly,
the Director directed reopening of the entire issue of fixation of
responsibility.
4. The petitioners, including the present applicants, then
approached this Court by filing the writ petition. Their main
ground was that once their appeal had already been allowed
earlier, and the liability against them had been set aside, the
matter had attained finality so far as they were concerned.
Therefore, according to them, reopening of the entire issue by the
Director was not proper in law.
5. When the writ petition came before this Court, initially there
was some doubt about its maintainability. The Court noted that a
revisional remedy was available. Even then, after considering the
matter, the Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim
relief. This shows that the Court found that the issues raised
required consideration, at least at the interim stage.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1
took a separate step. Acting on legal advice or impression that a
revision would be maintainable, he filed a revision application
before the State Government. That revision application came to be
disposed of with an observation that the same order was already
under challenge in the present writ petition.
7. Petitioner No.1 understood this outcome in a particular way.
He formed an impression that the order of the revisional authority
8-ia2500-2021 with ia19333-2022.doc
was in his favour, or at least that further continuation of the writ
petition was not necessary. Based on this understanding, he
personally instructed the Advocate to withdraw the writ petition.
Acting on such instructions, the Advocate made a request before
this Court, and the Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition
by order dated 29 January 2016.
8. The order of this Court clearly records that the request for
withdrawal was made on the basis of written instructions from the
petitioner. The order refers to "petitioner" in singular form. This
aspect becomes important. It shows that the instructions placed
before the Court were attributed to one petitioner, and not to all
petitioners collectively.
9. The present applicants state that they had no knowledge of
this development at the relevant time. According to them, they
became aware of the withdrawal only in July 2021. This happened
when they made an enquiry with the Advocate who had appeared
in the matter. The Advocate clarified that he had acted on the
instructions of petitioner No.1, who had originally engaged him,
and that the withdrawal was done on that basis.
10. This delay in knowledge is explained by the applicants by
stating that they were not informed about the withdrawal earlier.
There is nothing on record to show that they had consciously
accepted or approved such withdrawal at the relevant time.
11. Petitioner No.1 has also filed an affidavit in the present
proceedings. In that affidavit, he states that his intention was
limited. According to him, he wanted to withdraw the writ petition
8-ia2500-2021 with ia19333-2022.doc
only to the extent of petitioner No.1. However, due to some
communication gap, the entire writ petition came to be
withdrawn. This statement of petitioner No.1 supports the stand of
the present applicants to some extent. It indicates that even the
person who gave instructions did not intend to affect the rights of
all petitioners.
12. On an overall consideration of the material, certain aspects
become clear. First, the writ petition involved multiple petitioners,
each having their own interest in the matter. Second, the
withdrawal was based on instructions given by only one petitioner.
Third, the order of this Court records such instructions in singular
terms. Fourth, there is no material to show that the other
petitioners had authorised or consented to withdrawal of the
entire petition. Fifth, even petitioner No.1 now states that his
intention was not to withdraw the petition for all. In such a
situation, if the order of withdrawal is allowed to stand as it is, it
would result in serious prejudice to the present applicants. They
would lose the opportunity to challenge the reopening of liability,
even though they claim that the issue had already attained finality
in their favour.
13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants have
shown sufficient cause for recall of the order dated 29 January
2016, at least to the extent it affects them. The power to recall is
to be exercised to prevent injustice. In the present case, if recall is
not granted, the applicants would suffer for an act which they
neither authorised nor intended.
8-ia2500-2021 with ia19333-2022.doc
14. Accordingly, Interim Application No.2500 of 2021 is allowed
in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c).
15. Writ Petition No.2739 of 2011 shall be listed for hearing on 8
April 2026.
16. In view of the disposal of Interim Application No.2500 of
2021, Interim Application No.19133 of 2022 does not survive and
stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
