##PAGE1##

Digitally 907-WP-12384-2025.doc

signed by

RUPALI

RUPALI RAJESH

RAJESH WAKODIKAR

WAKODIKAR Date:

2025.12.30

12:53:19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

+0530

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12384 OF 2025

Pristine Concepts Pvt.Ltd.Thr.CEO ...Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India Thr.

The Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre (through VC) a/w Ms. Sonali Jadhav & Mr.

Sanket Patil for the Petitioner.

Mr. M.M.Pabale, A.G.P for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Vinit Jain a/w Mr. Gaurav Mhatre & Ms. Shazia Awari for the

Respondent No.1 – Union of India.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 24 ^th DECEMBER, 2025

P.C. :

1. On 26^th September, 2025, notice was issued to the

respondents making it returnable on 13^th November, 2025. On the

said date, learned A.P.P sought time to file affidavit-in-reply, if any,

Wakodikar 1/4

::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 20:37:48 :::

907-WP-12384-2025.doc

within two weeks from the said date. Accordingly, the matter was

stood over to 13^th November, 2025.

2. On 13^th November, 2025, learned Counsel appearing for

the respondent No.1 again sought time to file affidavit-in-reply. Time

was accordingly granted. The same was to be filed within two weeks

with an advance copy to the learned Counsel for the other side. Vide

the said order, we had made it clear that it was open for the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to file their additional affidavits in the

Registry, within two weeks, if they so desired, with an advance copy to

the other side. Accordingly, the matter was stood over to 4^th

December, 2025.

3. Today, yet again, Mr. Jain appearing for the respondent

No.1 - Union of India, seeks time to file affidavit-in-reply. He states

that despite informing the respondent No.1, he has no information /

instructions from them.

Wakodikar 2/4

::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 20:37:48 :::

907-WP-12384-2025.doc

4. We may note, that the stand of the respondent Nos.2 and 3

is that they support the relief as sought for by the petitioner.

5. Despite two opportunities being granted to the respondent

No.1 to file their reply, the Advocate for the respondent No.1 – Union

of India has no instructions. Hence, he seeks time again.

6. Accordingly, time is granted to file affidavit-in-reply,

however, subject to costs. The same to be filed in the Registry on or

before 2^nd January, 2026, with an advance copy to the learned Counsel

for the petitioner.

7. The respondent No.1 – Union of India is permitted to file

said affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.1, subject to depositing

costs of Rs.5,000/- with the Maharashtra State Legal Services

Authority.

Wakodikar 3/4

::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 20:37:48 :::

907-WP-12384-2025.doc

8. Needless to state, that the said costs to be borne by the

officers responsible for the delay, from their salary.

9. Stand over to 6^th January, 2026. To be listed on the

Supplementary Board.

SANDESH D. PATIL, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Wakodikar 4/4

::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 20:37:48 :::