1 9-ia-6781-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6781 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5951 OF 2016 Govind Krishna Shelar …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents Mr. Viraj Shelatkar a/w. Mr. Ganesh Gole, Mr. Kunjan Makwana, for the Applicant/Petitioner Smt. Pooja Joshi-Deshpande, AGP, for the State. VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.PAREKAR Date: 2026.09.02 15:08:38 +0530 DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. By this application, the applicant (original petitioner) is seeking restoration of Writ Petition No. 5951 of 2016, which stood dismissed for non-prosecution as per order dated 07.12.2018 passed by this Court. 2. A perusal of the said order shows that it was a self-operating order directing that if the petitioner failed to engage another lawyer before the next date of listing, the petition would stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. It appears that the applicant/petitioner could not engage another lawyer, and the said order dated 07.12.2018 came into effect, leading to dismissal of the Vishal Parekar ….1 2 9-ia-6781-2026.doc writ petition. At the stage when the writ petition stood dismissed for non-prosecution, it was pending consideration and reply affidavit was also on record.

3. The applicant has stated the reasons in the present application in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the application. These include the poor financial condition of the applicant, due to which he could not engage an advocate within the stipulated period of time. Reference is also made to the period when the COVID-19 pandemic had hit the nation. 4. Considering the reasons stated in the application, although the delay in moving the present application is considerable, we are inclined to show indulgence to the applicant and to allow the present application. 5. In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Consequently, the writ petition stands restored. 6. List the restored Writ Petition No. 5951 of 2016 for further consideration on 30th September, 2026 under the caption "For Directions." (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Vishal Parekar ….2

1 9-ia-6781-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6781 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5951 OF 2016 Govind Krishna Shelar …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents Mr. Viraj Shelatkar a/w. Mr. Ganesh Gole, Mr. Kunjan Makwana, for the Applicant/Petitioner Smt. Pooja Joshi-Deshpande, AGP, for the State. VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.PAREKAR Date: 2026.09.02 15:08:38 +0530 DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. By this application, the applicant (original petitioner) is seeking restoration of Writ Petition No. 5951 of 2016, which stood dismissed for non-prosecution as per order dated 07.12.2018 passed by this Court. 2. A perusal of the said order shows that it was a self-operating order directing that if the petitioner failed to engage another lawyer before the next date of listing, the petition would stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. It appears that the applicant/petitioner could not engage another lawyer, and the said order dated 07.12.2018 came into effect, leading to dismissal of the Vishal Parekar ….1 2 9-ia-6781-2026.doc writ petition. At the stage when the writ petition stood dismissed for non-prosecution, it was pending consideration and reply affidavit was also on record.

3. The applicant has stated the reasons in the present application in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the application. These include the poor financial condition of the applicant, due to which he could not engage an advocate within the stipulated period of time. Reference is also made to the period when the COVID-19 pandemic had hit the nation. 4. Considering the reasons stated in the application, although the delay in moving the present application is considerable, we are inclined to show indulgence to the applicant and to allow the present application. 5. In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Consequently, the writ petition stands restored. 6. List the restored Writ Petition No. 5951 of 2016 for further consideration on 30th September, 2026 under the caption "For Directions." (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Vishal Parekar ….2