Kuldeep Ramesh Kshirsagar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Sec Ministry Of Finance, Dept. Of Revenue And Ors

Facts

This matter concerns Interim Application No. 6786 of 2026 filed in Writ Petition No. 11447 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court. The applicant, Kuldeep Ramesh Kshirsagar, sought to amend the petition to implead GST as a party respondent. The applicant also sought condonation of a 75-day delay in filing the interim application. The Court was informed that the Writ Petition had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant sought recall of this dismissal order. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and directed the respondents, Union of India and the State, to appear. The petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the petition to the respondents, and the respondents were granted three weeks to file an affidavit in reply. The petition was listed for further hearing.

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 75 days in filing the Interim Application. The Court was satisfied that the reasons provided in the application justified the condonation. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous order dismissing the Writ Petition for want of prosecution. The Writ Petition No. 11447 of 2025 was restored to the file. The Interim Application No. 6786 of 2026 was disposed of as having served its purpose. The Court also granted leave to amend the petition to implead GST as Respondent No. 6, directing the amendment to be carried out forthwith. The Court then proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and directed the respondents to file their affidavits in reply, listing the matter for further hearing on October 6, 2026. No specific issues related to GST law were decided in this order, as it primarily dealt with procedural matters.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 75 days in filing the Interim Application should be condoned, and if so, whether the order dismissing the Writ Petition for want of prosecution should be recalled and the Writ Petition restored to file, pursuant to Section 142 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (by analogy, as this is a writ petition). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was unintentional and that sufficient cause existed for condoning it. They contended that the dismissal for want of prosecution was an error and that the merits of the case should be heard. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the condonation of delay or the restoration of the petition. The respondents were represented and directed to file their replies.