Allowed

Parag Vijay Mehta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra , through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept. , Mantralaya and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2018PIL/127/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning the non-implementation of a decision to convert a Gram Panchayat into a Nagar Panchayat, the Bombay High Court directed the State to follow the correct legal procedure and complete the conversion within four months.

What did the court decide?

The State Government directed to take an appropriate decision for constitution of Pali Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat within four months following the prescribed procedure.

Parag Vijay Mehta and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

PIL 127-18.doc

¶2

1/5

¶3

BGP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.127 OF 2018

¶6

1] Parag Vijay Mehta Age: 38 years, Occu: Business, 2] Gajanan Dattatray Shinde, Age: 49 years, Occu: Agriculture, 3] Abhijeet Madhukar Chandorkar, Age: 46 years, Occu: Business, 4] Sudhir Anant Sakharle, Age: 41 years, Occu: Service, 5] Sanjog Deepak Sheth, Age: 32 years, Occu: Business, 6] Ashik Gafoor Maniar, Age: 35 years, Occu: Business, All residing at & Post Pali, Tal: Pali – Sudhagad, District Raigad. …Petitioners Versus 1] State of Maharashtra Through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] District Collector Raigad, Office of District Collector, Alibag, Dist: Raigad.

¶7

PIL 127-18.doc

¶8

2/5

¶9

BGP

¶10

3] Tahsildar, Taluka Pali, District Raigad.

¶11

4] Shri. Mahesh Ghabade, Extension Officer, Pali Panchayat Samiti/Administrator of Group Gram Panchayat, Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad.

¶12

5] State Election Commission, New Administrative Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. …Respondents Mr. C. G. Gavnekar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶13

Mr. S .B. Kalel, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶14

Mr. S. B. Shetye, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶15

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & M.S. KARNIK, JJ DATE : 14 SEPTEMBER 2018

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J)

¶17

1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶18

2] Heard by consent of parties.

¶19

3] The Petitioners have approached this Court with a

¶20

PIL 127-18.doc

¶21

3/5

¶22

BGP

¶23

grievance that though the State Government vide Notification dated 26 June 2015 has notified area of Village Pali in District Raigad as small urban area and has constituted Nagar Panchayat by name Pali Nagar Panchayat, the State has not taken steps to take it to its logical end.

¶24

4] We are aware about the restraints of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We cannot compel the State Government to take a particular decision in a particular manner. However, when the State Government itself has taken a decision to constitute Nagar Panchayat, it is expected that the State should take it to its logical end.

¶25

5] From the material placed on record, it would reveal that the State Government had earlier issued the notification dated 26^th June 2015 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 to constitute the Nagar Panchayat by name Pali Nagar Panchayat and appointed Tahsildar as its administrator. However, the same came to

¶26

PIL 127-18.doc

¶27

4/5

¶28

BGP

¶29

be challenged by way of Writ Petition No.7061 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 14^th March 2016 found that prior to issuance of notification the procedure prescribed by law and particularly under the provisions of Sub Sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 3 was not followed and as such set aside the said notification.

¶30

6] It could thus be seen that though the State Government has taken a conscious decision to constitute group Gram Panchayat into Pali Nagar Panchayat, the same could not be implemented since the notification issued was set aside on the ground of procedure as prescribed by law was not being followed. In that view of the matter, we find that there should not be any impediment to the State Government to follow the procedure as prescribed in law for constituting the Gram Panchayat Pali into Nagar Panchayat.

¶31

7] We therefore dispose of the Petition with direction to the State Government to take appropriate decision for constitution of Pali Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat after following the procedure

¶32

PIL 127-18.doc

¶33

5/5

¶34

BGP

¶35

as prescribed by law in the light of judgment and order passed by this

¶36

Court in Writ Petition No.7061 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four months from today.

¶37

8] Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶38

Balaji Govindrao Panchal Digitally signed by Balaji Govindrao Panchal Date: 2018.10.11 18:03:06 +0530

¶39

[M.S. KARNIK, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]

Parag Vijay Mehta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra , through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept. , Mantralaya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parag Vijay Mehta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra , through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept. , Mantralaya 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

Ankush Ramchandra Chame Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Keshav Rama Muddewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smita Mayank Dhruva (Chaudhari) Vs Union of India through Manager Central Railway and 5 Ors.

Subhash Nagar Nivara Hakka Sangharsh Wsameeti through Mr. S. Bhardwaj and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader , and Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Bajrang Gadekar vs High Court of Judicature of Bombay through Its Registrar General and Ors.

Atul Dilip Kashid Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Revenu Dept and Forest Dept. and Anr.

Sandip Gautam Wghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mansoor Sikander Pathan Patel and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachit Prakash Shetty Vs the Cathedral and John Connon School and 4 Ors.

Mohd. Salim Khan and 7 Ors. Vs Office of Sub-Divisional Officer Mumbai Suburban and 6 Ors.

Pantnagar Gokul Chs Ltd. Vs the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and 3 Ors.

Dr Ramakant Ramkaran Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mohd. Shadab Alam Murtuza Shaikh Vs Renaissance Construction (Janta Sevak Nagar) and 8 Others

M/S. Shri Rajendra Marble and Granites and Ors. Vs Cidco Ltd. and Anr.