Dismissed

Anusuya Harishchandra Mhatre and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Oct 2007CAL/196/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the applicants' application for extending the tenure of the Kasheli Gram Panchayat, holding that the original tenure had nearly expired, rendering the appeal academic. The Letters Patent Appeal and accompanying civil applications were dismissed as the interim order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Application for extension of Gram Panchayat tenure rejected; ad interim order vacated; appeals dismissed.

Anusuya Harishchandra Mhatre and Anr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.196 OF 2005
 AND
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.324 OF 2007
 IN
 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.165 OF 2005
 IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.10518 OF 2004

¶5

 Smt.Anusuya Harishchandra
 Mhatre and Anr. .. Applicants
 Vs.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr.M.M.Kadam i/b Mr.Pratap Patil for the applicants

¶8

 Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for the respondents

¶9

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 1ST OCTOBER, 2007

¶11

 P.C.:

¶12

 1. On 22.03.03, general election to elect 9
 members of Gram Panchayat Kasheli was held for a
 term of 5 years. In the said election, 6 seats out
 of 9 seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes
 category, one seat was reserved for O.B.C. and 2
 seats were reserved for open category. In the

¶13

¶14

 election, only 8 members were elected and no
 nominations were received for one seat. It so
 happened that in respect of 5 candidates who were
 elected from reserved seats, their certificates
 came to be invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny
 Committee and they came to be debarred from
 contesting election for a period of 6 years and
 criminal proceedings came to be initiated against
 them.

¶15

 2. Thereafter some residents of the Kasheli
 Village filed a Writ Petition seeking directions
 against the State to hold fresh election or in the
 alternate appoint administrator. Accordingly,
 respondents were directed to take action under
 section 145(1A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat
 Act, 1958 to dissolve the Gram Panchayat or conduct
 by-elections in respect of seats, which are vacant.
 Though this exercise was undertaken for want of
 nominations, the election could not take place and,
 therefore, it was decided to hold election. The
 said order came to be challenged by filing Writ
 Petition No.10518 of 2004. The learned single
 Judge of this court dismissed the petition on the

¶16

¶17

 given facts and circumstances and directed the
 respondents to declare fresh election programme in
 accordance with law. This order has been impugned
 in this Letters Patent Appeal in the year 2005 and
 this court on 6th September, 2005 admitted the
 appeal and granted ad interim order in terms of
 prayer clause (b). Now the appellant has moved
 this application for seeking extension of the
 tenure of the Kasheli Gram Panchayat in Bhiwandi
 Taluka of Thane District for a period of one year
 two months and nine days and as directed not to
 hold election till the expiry of such extended
 tenure.

¶18

 3. In our view, due to passage of time, the
 original tenure of the Gram Panchayat has almost
 come to an end. The issue which has been agitated
 in the Letters Patent Appeal now only remains to be
 an academic exercise, and, therefore, we vacate the
 ad interim order granted by this court on 6th
 September, 2005 and the present application stands
 rejected.

¶19

 4. The learned counsel for the appellants to

¶20

¶21

 seeks instruction whether the appellants want to
 prosecute the Letters Patent Appeal further, or
 want to withdraw the same. Both the Civil

¶22

 Applications are dismissed accordingly.

¶23

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶24

 ( A.A. SAYED, J )

Anusuya Harishchandra Mhatre and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusuya Harishchandra Mhatre and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Narhari Kawade Vs Ramchandra Narhari Kawade and Ors.

Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs Suresh Bajarang Powar and Ors.

Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs Vidya Nandkumar Kadam and Ors.

Shri Naresh Gangaram Chinchane Vs Bank Karmachari Sangh and Another

Kawaljeet Kaur Milkha Bedi Vs Milkha Singh Bedi

Gautam Pandurang Nage Vs Lata Gautam Nage