Dismissed

Keru Tatoba Shejul v. Tukaram Biru Devkate and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2007LPA/160/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disallowed a Letters Patent Appeal against disqualification of a Grampanchayat member for fathering a third child under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. Found no need to remand as the appellant had prior evidence opportunities. Dismissed the appeal and the related civil application.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; civil application dismissed as infructuous.

Keru Tatoba Shejul Vs Tukaram Biru Devkate and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2007

¶5

IN

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2838 OF 2006

¶7

 Keru Tatoba Shejul. .. Appellant.

¶8

vs.

¶9

 Tukaram Biru Devkate

¶10

 & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶11

 Mr. Amit Sale for Appellant.

¶12

 Mr. R.M. Patene, AGP.,for respondent no.2.

¶13

CORAM: J.N. PATEL &

¶14

 A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶15

 DATE: 9TH AUGUST 2007.

¶16

 P.C.

¶17

 . Heard.

¶18

 2. The appellant came to be disqualified as a

¶19

 member of Grampanchayat, Khalathi under Section
 14(1)(j-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958
 for having fathered third child after 12.09.2001.

¶20

¶21

 3. The matter was examined by the Collector on the
 complaint received which was found to be correct and
 that is how the order of disqualification came to be
 passed. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Pune
 Division, Pune, concurred with the findings of the
 Collector which was challenged before this Court. The
 learned Single Judge dismissed the petition in limine
 and refused to entertain any challenge in the matter.

¶22

 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
 appellant that the appellant may be given an
 opportunity to lead evidence in the matter and,
 therefore, the matter be remanded.

¶23

 5. We find that the appellant had sufficient
 opportunity to lead evidence before the Collector on
 the issue as also before the Additional Commissioner.
 Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in
 remanding the matter. We do not find any merit in the
 Letters Patent Appeal. The same is dismissed. No
 order as to costs.

¶24

 6. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent
 Appeal, the civil application does not survive. The
 same is dismissed as infructuous.

¶25

 (J.N. Patel, J. )

¶26

¶27

 (A.A. Sayed, J. )

Keru Tatoba Shejul v. Tukaram Biru Devkate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keru Tatoba Shejul v. Tukaram Biru Devkate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Revachand Talreja Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Priyanka Enterprises Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Dattaram Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Honey Machines Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. Vs State Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. Vs Prakash Jay Shetty

Protochem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Official Liquidator of M/S. Glass Carboys and Pressed Wares Ltd. (in Liqn) and 2 Ors.