Dismissed

Smt.Shaila Pradeep Patil and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 Aug 2009WP/363/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging Gram Panchayat liability. The court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, directing petitioners to statutory remedies under CrPC. Ad-interim relief was extended briefly for one petitioner who had recently delivered a child.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners directed to seek alternative statutory remedies under CrPC; ad-interim relief extended for two weeks for one petitioner.

Smt.Shaila Pradeep Patil and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.363 OF 2009

¶4

Smt. Shaila Pradeep Patil
And Others.... Petitioners.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
& Others. ... Respondents.

¶7

Shri. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the
petitioners.

¶8

Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for respondents Nos.1,2 and 5.

¶9

Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondents
Nos.3 and 4.

¶10

Shri. J.M. Murkute, Advocate for respondent No.6.

¶11

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ.

¶12

DATE: 6^th AUGUST 2009

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1)Heard.

¶15

2)The learned counsel appearing for the

¶16

petitioners submits that the present body of the

¶17

Gram Panchayat cannot be held responsible for

¶18

¶19

mere taking entry of the sale transaction concerning houses allotted to the respective persons under the Government's “ Gharkul Yojana ”. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 178 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958. It is stated that this writ petition is filed prior to registration of the First Information Report. However, later on, the FIR is registered

¶20

by the police at the behest of the Block
Development Officer.

¶21

3)Shri. Jadhavar learned counsel further
submits that the earlier body of the Gram
Panchayat is not held responsible as their term

¶22

was over which is a wrong approach of the
authorities.

¶23

4)Considering the facts of the case we are
not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Petitioners have statutory
remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure

¶24

¶25

which they may avail of. We express no opinion
on merits of the matter. The petitioners may
resort to alternative remedies.

¶26

5)The writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

6)At this stage, learned counsel for the
petitioners states that petitioner No.1 – Shaila

¶28

had delivered a child in the month of March 2009
and therefore, ad-interim relief granted earlier
by this Court be continued for a period of two
weeks as regard petitioner No.1 – Shaila.

¶29

7)The ad-interim relief granted by this
Court in terms of amended prayer clause “D-1”
shall remain in operation only to the extent of
petitioner No.1 – Shaila for a period of two
weeks.

¶30

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶31

rsl/ crwp.363.09

¶32

Smt.Shaila Pradeep Patil and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Shaila Pradeep Patil and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sudhakar Pandit Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ashabai Bhavrao Desale

State of Maharashtra Vs Raju S/O. Bhagwat Suryawanshi and Ors.

Sau. Suman W/O. Ashok Bhusari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bharat Krishnarao Mohadakar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak S/O. Ramkrishna Bharuka Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.