Dismissed
Anil Umrao Gote v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bombay HCWP/1464/2001
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
WP 1464/01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1464/2001
Anil Umrao Gote, M.L.A., Dhule.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
None present for petitioner.
Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 5.
Shri Yogesh Bolkar, Advocate h/f Shri R.B. Raghuwanshi,
Advocate for respondent no.6.
Shri A.N. Sabnis, Advocate h/f Shri A.P. Shah, Advocate
for respondent nos.7 & 8.
.....
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 13.11.2014
ORDER :
1]The matter was called out in first half and heard
for some time. It is again called out in second half.
Party in person is absent. He was not present even on
earlier date in 2002. Thereafter, his absence is again
recorded on 9.6.2014.
2]Prayer in the petition is to direct respondent nos.1
WP 1464/01
- 2 -
to 3 to initiate and conclude the action u/s 55/A-B of
the Maharashtra Municipalities Act against Presidents of
Municipal Councils for abusing powers u/s 58(2) thereof.
Second prayer is to order a statutory audit of accounts
and affairs of Dhule Municipal Council for the period
from 1992 onwards.
3]Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 – ex-
President, has pointed out on affidavit that already
proceedings u/s 55-A and 55-B were going on against him.
He has further submitted that those proceedings were
initiated only on account of politics and to wreak
vengeance. He has supported prayer for conducting audit
and urged that audit should be conducted from 1985.
4]Learned AGP has invited our attention to reply
affidavits filed by respondent nos.1 to 4. She has
pointed out that appropriate action has been taken
against both Presidents namely Shri Shivaji Pawar and
Shri Mahesh Mistari and they were served with notices u/s
55-B. It is further submitted that for conducting the
audit, a competent officer was also appointed and report
of said auditor was awaited when affidavit was filed on
31.8.2001.
WP 1464/01
5]Thus, we find that grievance of the petitioner is
substantially redressed. Hence, without observing
anything on merits, we dismiss the writ petition for want
of prosecution. Rule is discharged. No order as to
costs.
ndk/ c13111418.doc
Anil Umrao Gote
The State of Maharashtra
B.P. DharMadhikari
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court