Dismissed

Kamalbai Kisan Arke v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2011WP/242/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writ relief alleging the impugned order was based on a vague complaint and condonable delay. The court found the petitioner failed to raise the vagueness issue before the authority and distinguished the cited precedent as the notice grievance was not raised here, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. No costs awarded.

Kamalbai Kisan Arke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 242 OF 2011

¶4

Smt. Kamalbai w/o. Kisan Arke, Age : 36 years, Occupation : Household & Sarpanch, R/o. Grampanchayat Kothari [Che], Taluka : Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and 3 others. .. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. G.R. Ingole, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶8

DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2011

¶9

(2)

¶10

COURT'S ORDER :

¶11

The contention is, as Gramsevak did not cooperate, some meetings could not be held and this was sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Mr. G.R. Ingole, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has further relied upon judgment of this Court, in the case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector & others (2010(4) Bom.C.R. 700) , to urge that here also, the complaint is vague.

¶12

With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned order. The grievance, that as complaint is vague, the petitioner is not in a position effectively to defend himself, was never raised before the Additional Collector. On the contrary, a reply trying to explain the circumstances has been placed on record. The reply in paragraph 3 states that though Gramsevak was instructed time and again to conduct the meetings, but she avoided and the record of Grampanchayat were not handed over.

¶13

Perusal of the judgment in the case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle (supra) , and particularly paragraph 4, would reveal that the petitioner therein made a grievance that the petitioner

¶14

(3)

¶15

was not served with proper notice of enquiry which was conducted and even copy of complaint was not served upon her. That grievance has been looked into in this background. The said judgment has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case.

¶16

The Additional Collector has considered the material and found that the petitioner had grievance against the then Gramsevak Smt. Shembolikar. In paragraph 7, the authority has found that there were two other Gramsevaks and against them, the petitioner had no grievance. Even during their regime, meetings have not been held. I do not find these findings are erroneous or perverse.

¶17

In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in this jurisdiction.

¶18

In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI )

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

bgp/wp242

Kamalbai Kisan Arke v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalbai Kisan Arke v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devidas Dadarao Nalawade and Ors. Vs Narayan Dagadu Nalawade and Ors.

Chandmal S.Varma. Vs Sumatilal S.Baldota,and Ors.

Anand Kashiram Sapkale Vs St.Joseph Convent High School Jalgaon

Bharat Babanrao Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Surekha Bharat Karande Vs Deepak Janardhan Wani and Ors.

Hussain Dadabhai Shaikh Vs the District Deputy Registrar Aurangabad and the District Election Officer and Ors.