w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shashi Saraswat v/s The State of Maharashtra & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

Company & Directors' Information:- SHASHI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51103DL1997PTC090921

    Writ Petition ST. No. 19728 of 2018

    Decided On, 18 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE BHARATI H. DANGRE

    For the Petitioner: S.M. Gorwadkar, Sr. Counsel I/b Niranjan A. Mogre, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, S.B. Kalel, AGP, R2, Shriniwas S. Patwardhan, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Bharati H. Dangre, J.

1. The petitioner, desirous of acquiring a degree in Medicine appeared for the National Entrance Cum Eligibility Test (NEET) conducted by the CBSE for the Academic Year 2018 on 6th May 2018. The admissions to the Health Science Courses which includes MBBS and BDS is conducted by the Commissioner, Common Entrance Test (CET) CELL, Mumbai in accordance with the Rules framed by it and published in the form of an information brochure for preference system for admission to health science courses in the State Government, Corporation, Private and Minority Colleges. The Medical Council of India had introduced a mechanism of common counselling for admission to MBBS in all medical education institutions on the basis of merit list of the National Eligibility Entrance Test. All admissions to the health science courses within the respective categories are to be based solely on the marks obtained in the NEET, which is prescribed as a single test for admission to all health science courses for Academic Year 2018-19. The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is authorized to conduct the NEET and for the year 2018-19, it was conducted on 6th May 2018. The responsibility of CBSE is limited to conduct the said test, declaration of its result and providing merit list to counselling authorities. The designated authority for counselling for the 15% All India Quota seats of the contributing states is the Director General Health Sciences, whereas the counselling for admission to MBBS courses in medical education institutions in State/Union Territory have been left to the respective State/Union Territory and as far as State of Maharashtra is concerned, it is entrusted to the respondent no.2. The Information brochure published by the respondent no.2 sets out the mechanism to be followed while filling up the seats to various health science courses in the respective colleges, including Government/Private and Minority colleges.

2. The petitioner cleared the NEET-UG-2018 conducted by CBSE and secured an All India Rank of 31718. On clearing the said examination and on scoring the position in the merit list, the petitioner was entitled to participate in the admission process conducted by the Commissionerate, CET Cell Mumbai i.e. respondent no.1. The father of the petitioner was a defence personnel and posted at Kirkee, Pune, a Havaldar in Military Hospital and he retired from service on 1st July 2018. In terms of the information brochure for NEET-UG-2018 published by the respondent no.2, 5% of the intake capacity subject to maximum of 5 seats in each government, municipal corporation and government aided medical colleges are reserved for children of defence service personnel and ex-defence personnel. For children of defence personnel transferred to Maharashtra from outside who are not domiciled in the State of Maharashtra, specific quota of one seat called Defence-3 (Def-3) has been reserved in those colleges where seats are reserved for defence personnel. Annexure-C of the information brochure sets out the provision for the reservation to be provided to children of Defence personnel and the details about the sharing of seats between the ex-defence and in-service defence category. It also defines Defence categories and sets out the conditions to be complied with, in order to be eligible for allotment of a seat meant for words of defence personnel. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to claim a seat in the Health Science course as a candidate from defence category. (Def-3).

3. On declaration of result of the NEET-UG-2018, on 4th June 2018, the respondent no.2 published an admission notice for filling up the seats in the Health Science courses in State of Maharashtra on 6th June 2018. The notice contemplated that the admission process for Health Science course would require a NEET All India Rank of the candidate and it sets out a schedule for conduct of the selection process. This contemplated an online registration/application by the candidates between 7th June 2018 to 17th June 2018 and then, publication of a provisional merit list on 19th June 2018. The next stage contemplated in the notice is that of document verification of the candidates at different centres specified in the notification between 21st June 2018 to 25th June 2018. The said notice then prescribed a stage for online preference filing process which was scheduled from 26th June 2018 to 29th June 2018, followed by declaration of select list of first round on 2nd July 2018. The last date for joining of the selected candidates from the first round according to the notice was scheduled on 12th July 2018 and the date for commencement of the Academic Session is declared as '1st August 2018'.

The said notice conveyed that the candidates should open the website 'www.mahacet.org' or ' www.dmer.org " for online registration process and the candidates were instructed to read the instructions carefully and the steps for preferring online application were also set out in the said notification.

4. In terms of the notice, the petitioner registered herself by adopting the online registration process in Defence-3 quota within the time limit prescribed and she filled in the details, including her NEET percentile score, NEET All India rank and she mentioned that her claim is staked against a seat from a specified reservation : Defence-3. She also declared that she is not domicile in State of Maharashtra and she had passed her 10th/12th standard from outside Maharashtra. She also opted for the centre for verification of document at B.J. Government Medical College, Pune. Subsequent to the registration by the petitioner and other candidates, the respondent no.2 published a provisional State merit list of NEET-UG-2018 on 19th June 2018, which included the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 2349 (317-18 NEET All India Rank) and her category was reflected as 'Defence-3'. The petitioner also attended the B.J. Government Medical College, Pune for verification of documents and the acknowledgment issued to her reflects the details of her candidature which included her claim for the specified reservation. A revised provisional merit list came to be published by the respondent no.2 on 26th June 2018 in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2349 on the basis of her All India Ranking and her category was shown as Defence-3 Quota (D-3). The petitioner has placed on record the said revised provisional merit list at Exhibit-G of the petition.

5. The petitioner thereafter was expected to undertake the online preference filing process where she was to give the preference of the college, where she was desirous of prosecuting her studies based on her score and ranking. It is the case of the petitioner that she was in Lucknow at the time of online filing of the preference form and she undertook the said exercise through a cyber cafe. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on opening the website and on filling the form number of the petitioner and the login password, the student's page was opened in which code number of 21 colleges were displayed. It is the specific averment made in the petition that on opening the website, the form of the petitioner appeared and on supplying the login password, students page came to be opened which flashed 21 medical colleges code number. The petitioner under the impression that Defence3 quota was provided in the said medical colleges, selected all the Code numbers under a bonafide belief that they were all Medical colleges. The petitioner has obtained a print out of the said webpage and has annexed the same along with the petition at ExhibitH. The petitioner makes a statement in the petition that she was under a bonafide belief that she had completed the process and had opted for the colleges which were the colleges to be opted for MBBS course and that she had successfully uploaded her preferences.

It was only when on 4th July 2018, when the selection list of the first round was published, she noticed that against her name, an endorsement to the following effect was made :

'CHOICE NOT AVAILABLE'

It is at that time, the petitioner realized that the preferences which were selected by the petitioner were of Nursing colleges and they were not the Code numbers of the Medical colleges. The petitioner was thus ousted from the selection process for the MBBS course as no seat was available to her in any of the colleges in State of Maharashtra offering MBBS course, since she has not exercised her preference in favour of any such college. The gross mistake committed by the petitioner occurred to her and with a hope that some solution can be afforded to the error committed by her, she preferred a representation to the respondent no.2 and conceded to the error and the mistake committed by her and requested for its rectification in some way. However, the respondent no.2 orally informed the petitioner that there is no mechanism for rectification of mistakes in filling online preferences and the software/system installed for carrying out the admission process did not permit such an intervention. This action of the respondents and deprivation of the petitioner to secure a seat in MBBS course inspite of her merit, has constrained her to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. By the said writ petition, she has sought a direction to the respondents to entertain her claim for the MBBS course as per her merit in the Merit list of NEET-UG-2018 in Defence-3 quota by affording her an opportunity to chose medical colleges of her preference.

6. In support of the petition, we have heard the learned senior counsel Shri Gorwadkar, who would concede to the fact that a gross mistake has been committed by the petitioner, but he would submit that perusal of the screenshot which the petitioner has placed on record at Exhibit-H would reveal that on opening the website page which the petitioner sought to enter after using the Code allotted to her reflected 21 colleges and he would submit that the code numbers of the said colleges were commencing from 9311SS to the colleges at Serial no.21 by Code 9228S, were all colleges of Nursing. Shri Gorwadkar concedes to the fact that the petitioner ought to have been careful while clicking/selecting the said colleges and he would also concede to the fact that the Brochure published by the respondent no.2 distinguished the colleges based on the government colleges offering MBBS seats from all the three regions i.e. Rest of Maharashtra (ROM), Vidharbha and Marathwada and also distinctly mentioned the colleges offering courses in Dentistry, Ayurveda BMS, Homeopath BHMS and also the colleges offering courses of B.Sc nursing including private and government. The learned senior counsel would submit that a small mistake should not cost the petitioner so much so as to compel her to opt a nursing course when she aimed for a MBBS course and had strived hard to secure a merit position in the entrance examination. The learned senior counsel would also submit that it is inconceivable that no mechanism is provided by the respondent no.2 to deal with such mishaps occurring due to inadvertence or may be, in some cases, on account of a bonafide mistake committed by a candidate.

7. On the petition being filed, Shri Patwardhan appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and he tendered an affidavit before this Court sworn by the Administrative Officer. In the said affidavit, the respondent no.2 has controverted the statements made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a technical glitch and what the petitioner could have seen on opening of the page while filling her preference form was only a list of nursing colleges and not medical colleges. The affidavit proceeds to state that on such a submission being made, a report from the SMB Systems Private Limited, an entity engaged for conducting the online admission process was sought and it reported that there was no technical glitch and it is specifically stated in the report that on 27th June 2018, total number of 4344 candidates have filled the online preference form and the petitioner filled up her form at 7.49 p.m. on 27th June 2018. The report categorically states that there was no technical glitch at any time from 6.00 p.m to 11.55 p.m on 27th June 2018. It is reported that total 1882 students have submitted their online preference forms. The affidavit further sets out that total 59597 students have registered themselves for online admission process to Health science courses in State of Maharashtra which commenced from 7th June 2018 and continued till 18th June 2018. It is also stated in the affidavit that based on the placement in the merit list, total 16,000 students were invited for submission of their documents for verification and total number of 15371 students filled up their preference forms, including the petitioner. The affidavit then gives the details as to the process to be followed for filling up of the preference form and it states that all health science course colleges in the State of Maharashtra have been given a unique code. The first of the four digits represents the identity of the course, the second represents the area where the respective college is located and the last two digits are the identity of health science course college. It is therefore stated that all medical colleges begin with digit 1, whereas code of nursing college begin with digit9. It is also stated in the affidavit that elaborate instructions were issued in the information brochure and two dedicated telephone lines were made available to the students who were desirous of participating in the online admission process. It is also stated that once the preference forms are filled in and merit list is operated, as against the preference form of the candidates, the process becomes irreversible.

8. The learned counsel Shri Patwardhan would submit that there are 12 seats available in the State of Maharashtra in Defence3 category and total 73 students had filled in their form from this category. It is stated by Advocate Shri Patwardhan that as on 12th July 2018 which is the last date for reporting for admissions on completion of the first round of admission, 10 students have reported to college and have taken admission and for the balance two seats, there are 63 candidates in queue who have filled in preference form for Defence3 quota. Shri Patwardhan would submit that if any relief is to be granted to the petitioner at this stage, it would encroach upon the accrued right to 63 other students who have duly applied for and availed their preferences. On the other hand, it is the petitioner who has committed a mistake in filling up the preference form, for which she herself is responsible. Shri Patwardhan would submit that the failure on the part of the petitioner to be diligent and clicking the 'submit' button without bothering to ensure about the preference of the colleges which she is opting, has made the position irreversible and even though the petitioner deserves sympathy the respondent no.2 authority cannot afford to assist her at the cost of other students who are aspiring to claim two seats available from Defence-3 category. Shri Patwardhan would therefore, submit that the writ petition deserved to be rejected.

9. We have carefully perused the petition along with its annexures and also the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 authority along with its annexures. We have also considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true that the information brochure of preference system for admission to Health science courses in State Government/Corporation/Private and Minority colleges published by the Commisisonerate CET Cell Mumbai i.e. respondent no.2 in detail, sets out the procedure to be adopted for granting admission to the Health science courses in all the Medical, Dental and other colleges in State of Maharashtra. The said process contemplates an online procedure and attempts to ensure transparency at all stages. After setting out the eligibility for admission to the MBBS and BDS courses, the information brochure sets out in detail the distribution of seats and the reservations to be provided including the constitutional reservations and the special reservations. Rule 10 of the selection process sets out in detail the selection process to be followed and it stipulates that the selection of the candidates is to be made on the basis of the preference given by the candidates. The preferences will be allowed to be filled online by those candidates who appeared for document verification and are found to be eligible. The seat allocation is to be made centrally on the basis of NEET-UG-2018 merit in the State of Maharashtra and on the basis of the preferences exercised by the candidate.

10. We have carefully perused the Rule pertaining to the selection process and what is very apparent is that a candidate can fill in online preference form multiple times before clicking the 'submit' button. However, when once 'submit' button is clicked, then there is no provision to change the preference. The brochure also makes it very clear that the preference once given will be used for first round and subsequent round(s), including the Mop Up round of selection/upgradation. We have also noted that the selection process contemplates two or more rounds of selection of candidates depending upon the availability of vacant seats. The salient feature of the selection process is the merit and preferences submitted by the candidates. The brochure also makes it clear that the choices of courses and colleges once entered online becomes final and irreversible and this final data is to be used throughout the selection process for admission to first year health science course for the Academic year 2018-19.

11. The brochure explains and expects the candidates to be very careful while filling the online preference form and clear instructions are given to the candidates as to the selection of preferences and it is clearly conveyed that NEET-UG-2018, merit list will be operated from NEET-UG-2018 Rank 1 onwards in each round of selection and the candidate getting selected in previous round will be considered for betterment in the subsequent rounds and betterment means 'higher preference'. A candidate who does not intend to shift is to fill in status retention form and on such form being filled, the candidate will be considered for any subsequent rounds. Thus, the information brochure has simplified the process for the students, but at the same time, in order to maintain the consistency, it contemplates operating the NEET-UG-2018 merit list as against the preferences filled in by the students online. We do not, in any way, doubt the mechanism followed by the respondent no.2 nor we have any iota of doubt in our mind that the information brochure has simplified the procedure and the students are expected to follow the instructions given in the said brochure while filling up the preference form, but we are confronted with a student like the petitioner who has committed a gross mistake. Admitting that it is a gross mistake, the question is whether it is so irretrievable that she deserves to be thrown out of the entire process. When we examined the matter from this angle and in light of the submissions advanced by Shri Patwardhan, we have noted that the petitioner has secured All India Rank of 3178. She registered herself against the Defence3 quota within the prescribed time limit and was provided a login password for further operations. It is not in doubt that the petitioner was found to be eligible in terms of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the respondent no.2 and entitled to claim a seat from the category of defence (Def-3). In the backdrop of her eligibility on the basis of her placement in the NEET-UG-2018, the name of the petitioner was included in the provisional State Merit list published on 19th June 2018. The petitioner was thereafter called for verification of the documents at the stage of document verification and she reported at one of the centres which she had chosen at the time of online registration. At that stage also, no fault was found with her eligibility or her categorization from Defence3 category. Subsequent to this, a revised provisional state merit list was published by respondent no.2 on 26th February 2018. Perusal of the said list would reveal that it is prepared on the basis of the NEET All India Rank and the students are arranged in a descending order on the basis of their score in NEET 2018. It also contains the CET Cell online form number of a candidate, name of the candidate, category and the specified reservation claimed. The petitioner is placed at Serial No.2349 in the said list based on her NEET All India Rank 31718 and against her name, the specified reservation is described as Def3. Below the name of the petitioner, are the candidates who are below in NEET All India Rank than the petitioner and necessarily they are the students who have secured less marks in the examination than the petitioner. Thus, the revised provisional State merit list published by respondent no.2 on 26th February 2018 is based on the merit of a student and the marks secured in the NEET-UG-2018. It is this stage at which the candidates preference to a particular course/college is to be considered and therefore, the students are required to fill online preferences. We have revised provisional State Merit list published by the respondent no.2 on 26th February 2018 based on the merit of a student and the marks secured in the NEET UG-2018. It is this stage at which the candidates preference to a particular course/college is to be considered and therefore, the students are required to fill online preferences. We have seen that Rule 10 of the selection process, that contemplates operation of the merit list as against the preference filled in by the students. When after the first round of the selection process on 4th July 2018, the respondent no.2 published the selection list, it operated the provisional merit list published on 26th June 2018 as against the preferences given by the respective students. It was based on the common State merit list and every student from the said merit list was allotted a college as per his preference. The petitioner was not allotted any college since there was no option available to her based on her merit in a college offering MBBS course since she has not opted for that and therefore, in the list, against her name, the remark 'choice not available' was endorsed. Perusal of the said list would reveal that the merit of the petitioner, namely, All India Ranking 31718 is not altered and below the name of the petitioner are those candidates who have secured less marks than the petitioner. The next candidate in the list published on 4th July 2018 who takes the (Defence 3) seat is that All India Ranking 36832. Thus, it is clear that the list published on 4th July 2018 operates on the basis of the position of merit which has been consistently based on the NEET All India Ranking and which has not undergone any change. The petitioner has missed out her placement in the list dated 4th July 2018 only on the count that no choice of college was available since she did not opt for any college offering MBBS degree. The submission of Mr.Patwardhan that if the petitioner is now permitted to participate, the meritorious students would be kept out of the arena, according to us, is not acceptable. In the first round of selection, the list has been declared on 4th July 2018 and the candidates were directed to report on or before 12th July 2018. The second round of counselling is ongoing and the list, after conclusion of the second round is to be published on 27th July 2018. It is not our intention to deprive any meritorious student of his/her claim and we have noted the submissions of Shri Patwardhan that out of 12 seats from D-3 category, 10 students have reported to the respective colleges on conclusion of first round of selection and now, there are only two seats in D-3 category and there are 63 candidates claiming these two seats. We again reiterate that we have no intention of whatsoever nature to deprive a meritorious candidate, but we are also very clear in our mind that all the candidates who claim in D-3 category quota were aware of their merit position on the publication of the provisional State merit list of NEET UG-2018 on 19th June 2018 and this position was also reflected in the revised provisional State merit list published on 26th June 2018. In view of the fact that the lists are displayed on the website and the students are fully aware about their movement in the said process, each student gets a clear idea as to what is his score and what are his chances in getting into a particular college of his choice, since he is also aware of the merit position and preferences of other students. A candidate from D3 category who would be considered in the second round is surely a candidate who is less in merit and lower in NEET All India Ranking than that of the petitioner, since we have seen that a candidate lower in rank than that of the petitioner finds place on the Defence-3 category seat in the list published on 4th July 2018. Therefore, we do not think that any meritorious candidate who is higher in merit than the petitioner would stake a claim against that seat when it is made available for the second round. Any candidate who is lower in merit than the petitioner cannot stake the claim as the All India Rank Merit is the sole criteria for selection to a course and to secure a particular seat. Merely because the petitioner has erred and we emphasize grossly, in filling the prefer

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ence form, still the position remains that the merit secured by the petitioner would not be wiped and she cannot be thrown out of the said process merely because of such an error, solely attributable to her. In any event, we are not pushing the petitioner into the round no.1 as that round is already over and the students have taken their respective positions. However, we intend to introduce the petitioner in the second round and it would be open for her only to exercise her choice/preferences in the seats which are vacant and where there is a reservation of D-3 category. Moreso, when a further round of admission is indeed going to be held. That is to be held to ensure that no seat remains unfilled. Equally, any remaining or unfilled seats should not go less meritorious students ought to be the concern of the Authorities. In such gross circumstances, and only in facts peculiar to this case, we expect the Authorities to take the requisite corrective steps. No precedent can be created by such a course for every mistake not attributable to the authorities but entirely to the candidates is incapable of being corrected if there are no further rounds or no vacant seat left at all. A bonafide exception can therefore be made only to redress the gross injustice to an otherwise meritorious candidate who is the daughter of a defence personnel. Hence, the fear that this course sets a precedent is baseless. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that since ranking of the candidate in NEET UG-2018 is the decisive factor in securing a seat in a Health Science course and in a college of his/her choice, the petitioner who has incorrectly filled the preference/option form, deserves to be granted an opportunity in the ongoing selection process by permitting her to fill in the option form and directing the respondent authorities to consider her options for the MBBS colleges and operate the said options against the vacant seats available for the second round of selection/counselling. Since it is informed to us that the second round of counselling is ongoing and the list is likely to be displayed on 26th July 2018, we direct the respondent no.2 to undertake the said exercise forthwith. Hence, we pass the following order: (i) The respondent no.2 – Commissioner Common Entrance Test Cell, is directed to permit the petitioner to offer her choice of preference in the MBBS course against the seats of MBBS course in the second round of counselling. (ii) We direct the respondent no.2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner, on the basis of the State merit list of NEET UG-2018 and operate the preference/option given by the petitioner as against her merit. Position in the second round of counselling to the Health Science courses. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-05-2020 Shashi Prabha Versus Dy. Director Of Consolidation Budaun & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-05-2020 Shashi Bala Jain Versus State of U.P & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Manohar Bhimraoji Mahalle & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Balaso Gulab Pendhari & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Devyani Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Anant Dattatraya Pashilkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Mohammed Aslam Azad Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Radhabai Gabaji Rokade Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Kishor Laxman Lonari, Convict No. C/52 Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Prison – 3, State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Haseena Babu Sanadi @ Haseena Rasul Tadwal Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Justice & Special Assistance Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 Sainath Annasaheb Waghchaure & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Dadarao & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Priyanka Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Principle Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Daulu Patil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mansing Shankarrao Mane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Suresh Navnath Londhe & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Chandrakant @ Gotya Ramdas Pawar Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through Anti Corruption Bureau) Greater Bombay Unit, Gr. Bombay) Versus Talimunisa Rais Ahmed High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Sahel Ahmad Wakeel Ahmad Quadri & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Public Health Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-2020 Shri Maruti Tukaram Bagawe & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another Supreme Court of India
27-02-2020 Salauddin Imamuddin Ansari Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home, Department (Special), Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-2020 Charudatta & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue & Forests Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box