Disposed

Minakshi Mahadeo Mali v. the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Bombay HC28 Sept 2015WP/9053/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of connected writ petitions challenging disqualification proceedings. It directed that applications for an opportunity to adduce evidence, including calling witnesses not on the list, be allowed to ensure natural justice, provided the petitioners produce such evidence within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Applications for leave to adduce evidence, including witnesses not on the list, were allowed within six weeks.

Minakshi Mahadeo Mali Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

{1}

wp9053-15

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9053 OF 2015

¶6

Minakshi w/o Mahadeo Mali PETITIONER Age - 35 years, Occ - Councilor R/o Tambari Vibhag, Osmanabad Taluka and District - Osmanabad

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, M. S. Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶9

The Collector, Osmanabad District - Osmanabad

¶10

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9054 OF 2015

¶11

Pruthviraj s/o Kallappa Chilwant PETITIONER Age - 45 years, Occ - Business R/o Bhimnagar, Osmanabad Taluka and District - Osmanabad

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, M. S. Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶14

The Collector, Osmanabad District - Osmanabad

¶15

WITH

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.9055 OF 2015

¶17

Amit s/o Diliprao Shinde Age - 40 years, Occ - Business R/o Tambari Vibhag, Osmanabad

PETITIONER

{2}

wp9053-15

Taluka and District - Osmanabad

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, M. S. Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Osmanabad District - Osmanabad

¶24

WITH

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.9152 OF 2015

¶26

Vrushali w/o Sadashiv Dandnaik PETITIONER Age - 37 years, Occ - Councilor R/o Yashwantnagar, Osmanabad Taluka and District - Osmanabad VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, M. S. Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Osmanabad District - Osmanabad ....... Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent State

¶27

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶28

DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2015

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶30

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

¶31

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

¶32

{3}

¶33

wp9053-15

¶34

Without going into other aspects of the matter, suffice it to refer to that proceedings pending before respondent No.2 were challenged on the ground of jurisdiction. This court, it appears, directed respondent No.2 to decide on the same as early as possible. According to the submission of petitioners, after decision had been rendered on jurisdiction, applications dated 13^th August, 2015 had been moved seeking opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence and thereupon the impugned orders have been passed.

¶35

Though learned AGP has quite vehemently submitted that these are tactics being employed by the petitioners to procrastinate decision on the disqualification proceedings, it appears that having regard to aforesaid events about direction to decide on jurisdiction and thereafter applications, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to let an opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence as sought under applications dated 13^th August, 2015, particularly having regard to order dated 1^st August, 2011 in writ petition No. 3953 of 2011 wherein learned single judge has observed that procedures are directory and should not be implemented rigidly and taking into account

¶36

{4} wp9053-15

¶37

principles of natural justice, the petitioners can be allowed to examine witnesses, not named in the list. If the petitioners desire to lead evidence, same may be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶38

In this view of the matter, applications at Annexure “A” dated 13^th August, 2015 stand allowed. The petitioners, however shall adduce evidence, as requested, as early as possible, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

¶39

With aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of. In case of failure to adduce evidence within aforesaid period, the disqualification proceedings should proceed further. However, it should be noted that aforesaid observations

¶40

are not on merits of the case at all and decision on the disqualification petitions should be rendered on its own merits. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶41

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶42

drp/wp9053-15

Minakshi Mahadeo Mali v. the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minakshi Mahadeo Mali v. the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aradhana @ Smita Shrikant Shejwal Vs Shrikant Rambhau Shejwal

Baburao Prabhuappa Khawade Vs Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Amir and Others

Sunilbhau Mahajan Swayamrojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited through Its Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pruthviraj Kallappa Chilwant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Manmath Shivlingappa Devangre and Others Vs Sushilabai Sopan Vanjane, Lrs Sanjiv Sopan Vanjane and Others

Bahru Savitri Athare Vs Ambadas Kesu Sase, Lrs Lankabai and Others