Disposed

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC20 Feb 2013WP/1012/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions challenging ex parte stay orders granted by the Additional Commissioner against a petitioner who had filed a caveat. The court held that absent emergency, ex parte stays cannot last till appeal disposal and treated the orders as ad interim pending hearing.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay orders treated as ad interim and valid only till disposal of stay petitions; parties to be heard expeditiously.

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 997.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 997 OF 2013

¶4

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2012

¶9

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan .. Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondent

¶12

Shri Paresh B. Patil Advocate for the Petitioner in both petitions. Shri V. B. Ghatage, A.G.P. for Respondent/State in both petitions. Shri A. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in both petitions.

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

. The grievance made by the petitioner in both these petitions is that in spite of filing of caveat the Additional

¶16

2 wp 997.13

¶17

Commissioner has granted stay without hearing the petitioner.

¶18

Shri P. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after the order was passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner immediately filed a caveat with the Additional Commissioner. That caveat was filed and was a part of the record. No notice was issued to the petitioner, nor the advocate of the petitioner was served with the copies and straight way the Additional Commissioner stayed the order of the Additional Collector till the disposal of the appeal. According to the learned counsel at the first instance the Additional Commissioner could not have passed the orders of stay without hearing the petitioner and secondly could not have passed the orders of stay till the disposal of the appeal and more particularly, when it was an ex-parte one. The learned counsel submits that the said order of stay deserve to be vacated.

¶19

3. The learned A. G. P. supports the order.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the exigency and the circumstances demanded passing of interim order. The present respondent No. 2 was disqualified as member

¶21

3 wp 997.13

¶22

of the Gram Panchayat and as such it was necessary to seek stay and to pass the emergent orders. In that light, the impugned orders are passed.

¶23

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the orders.

¶24

Whenever the caveat is filed by the parties, it is expedient to pass the orders after hearing the parties. The exception is only in case of emergency, wherein the situation demands passing of ex-parte order. In the present cases, no doubt the respondents were disqualified to be the members of Gram Panchayat for non submission of validity certificates within the stipulated period. However, the orders of stay could not have been passed ex-parte till the disposal of appeal. The orders of stay can be made absolute or the same can be vacated after hearing other side.

¶25

In the light of the above, the interim orders of stay passed by the Additional Commissioner shall be treated as an adinterim orders. The same shall not be treated till the disposal of the appeal, but only till the disposal of stay petitions.

¶26

4 wp 997.13

¶27

In view of the above, I pass the following order.

¶28

The orders of stay granted by the Additional Commissioner in favour of present respondent Nos. 2 shall be treated as an adinterim orders and shall be till the disposal of the stay petition. The Additional Commissioner shall hear all the parties and thereafter decide the said stay petition. The stay petitions shall be decided expeditiously. The parties shall appear before the Additional Commissioner on 06th March, 2013.

¶29

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶30

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶31

bsb/Feb. 13

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Balaji Pandurang Manale Vs Indira Memorial Education Society and Ors.

Sunita Sahebrao Khillare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chhotulal Parashram Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Khadar Mohd. Gaus Vs Anil @ Shripad Sakharam Narsikar and Ors.

Istekhar@Iftekhar Khan Hamid Khan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deelip Gulabrao Ambhore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another