Dismissed

Dhanaji Dattatray Gurao @ Dhanaji Dattoba Shirke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2016WP/609/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging Collector orders disqualifying petitioners under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 were dismissed. The court directed petitioners to approach the appellate authority prescribed under Section 16(2), keeping merit issues open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach appellate authority under Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

Dhanaji Dattatray Gurao @ Dhanaji Dattoba Shirke Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

909-912-wp-12594-16

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12594 OF 2016 WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2856 OF 2016

¶7

Smt. Kamal Kailas Giri .. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 30753 OF 2016 WITH

¶11

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2859 OF 2016

¶12

Dhanaji Dattatray Gurao @ Dhanaji Dattoba Shirke .. Petitioner

¶13

Vs.

¶14

State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶15

WITH

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 12731 OF 2016

¶17

Smt. Chhaya Subhash Jadhav .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶18

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12732 OF 2016

¶19

Mrs. Sunita Rahul Hadke .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

909-912-wp-12594-16

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 12733 OF 2016

¶24

Pradip Ramdas Mane Vs.

¶25

State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶26

.. Petitioner

¶27

.. Respondents

¶28

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for petitioners.

¶29

Mr. Prathamesh B. Bhargude for applicants in CAW Nos.2856 & 2859 of 2016.

¶30

Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for State.

¶31

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶32

NOVEMBER 17, 2016.

¶33

P.C.

¶34

The petitioners are challenging an order passed by the

¶35

Collector, dated 2/11/2016, dis-qualifying the petitioners for non-

¶36

compliance of Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

¶37

Mr. Bhargude, learned counsel appearing for the applicants

¶38

submits that against the said order passed by the Collector, an appeal is

¶39

prescribed under Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 Act.

¶40

¶41

909-912-wp-12594-16

¶42

The petitioners may resort to statutory remedy prescribed

¶43

under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. All issues on merits

¶44

are kept open.

¶45

All the petitions disposed of accordingly.

¶46

All Civil Applications do not survive and disposed as such.

¶47

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

Dhanaji Dattatray Gurao @ Dhanaji Dattoba Shirke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanaji Dattatray Gurao @ Dhanaji Dattoba Shirke v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Abdul Kadar Khaja Shaheb and 7 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 9 Ors.

Shiv-Shaila Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Municipal Commissioner and 3 Ors.

M/S. Unimmedss Vs State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Vilas Dewu Gavkar and Ors. Vs the Tahsildar, Devgad and Ors.

Satsang Co-Operative Hou. Soc. Ltd, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. D. R. Sawai Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune, through Commissioner and Ors.

M/S. Jai Shreeram Developers, through Partners and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Urban Development and Ors.