Vijay Govardhandas Rathod And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 4972 Bom

Bombay High Court

Vijay Govardhandas Rathod And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 May, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:22507

                                                      1                    5-WP-6544-2026 (C).doc


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 6544 OF 2026

            Vijay Govardhandas Rathod And Anr                                        ...Petitioners
                  Versus
            State Of Maharashtra And Ors                                             ...Respondents

                                      --------------------------------------------

            Adv. Dhavan Shah, a/w Vishal Babar, i/b Sanjay Dhadan, for the Petitioners.
            Adv. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - State.
            Adv. Alok Mishra, a/w Yoesh Kokare, Juilee Modak, for Respondent No. 3.

                                      --------------------------------------------


                                                CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

DATED : 13 MAY 2026 P.C.:- (VACATION COURT)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Petition primarily challenges the order dated 11 March 2026

passed by the Senior Citizen Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and

Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("the said Act" for short).

3. According to the Petitioner, there is extreme urgency in the matter, as,

if this Petition is not entertained, the Petitioners before this Court may suffer

eviction from the subject property pursuant to the Impugned Order dated 11

March 2026.

2 5-WP-6544-2026 (C).doc

4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 has placed on record a

communication dated 30 April 2026 addressed by the Registry of the

Tribunal, inter alia, to Respondent No. 3. According to this communication,

the Petitioner had preferred certain Application dated 7 April 2026. The

hearing of the said Application is scheduled on 28 May 2026 at 11.30 a.m., as

clearly indicated in the communication dated 30 April 2026. This fact has

not been disclosed in the proceedings filed before this Court. It appears that

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner was also not aware of the said

communication.

5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 has submitted that

the Applications referred to in the said communication relate to the same

subject property.

6. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the parties submit that, under

Section 16 of the said Act, a statutory appeal is provided to the Appellate

Tribunal against an order passed by the Tribunal, which in the present case

would be the order dated 11 March 2026.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has expressed an apprehension that

the appeal may not be permitted to be filed on the ground that the parties are

not senior citizens. Factually, this does not appear to be a correct submission,

inasmuch as Petitioner No. 1 is clearly a senior citizen. Be that as it may, the

3 5-WP-6544-2026 (C).doc

Petitioners may institute such statutory appeal under the said provision before

the Appellate Tribunal, which shall consider the same on its own merits and

in accordance with law, including the issue of maintainability of such appeal.

8. It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are

expressly kept open, without this Court expressing any opinion on the merits

of the Petition.

9. The issue of limitation, if raised, shall also be appropriately decided by

the Tribunal at the relevant stage and in accordance with law.

10. In view of the above, nothing survives in the present Petition, and the

same is accordingly Disposed Of.

11. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]