Allowed

Sushila Purushottam Arsul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Feb 2019WP/1756/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a Deputy Sarpanch seeking direction under Section 14(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, the Court allowed the petition partly. It directed the Collector, Beed, to decide the pending complaint regarding encroachment on Grampanchayat land by elected officials expeditiously and within 12 weeks.ointment of the order addresses the delay in the matter. The o

What did the court decide?

The Collector of Beed to decide the complaint regarding encroachment on Grampanchayat land expeditiously and within 12 weeks from the date of the order.

Sushila Purushottam Arsul Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

954.wp.1756.19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

954 WRIT PETITION NO.1756 OF 2019

¶4

Sushila w/o Purushottam Arsul, Age 33 years, Occu: Agri. & Household (Deputy Sarpanch) R/o Bensur, Tq. Patoda, District Beed.

¶5

… PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, through : Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶8

1. The Collector, Beed, District Beed.

¶9

1. Sau. Sharda Rajabhau Sagare Age : 41 years, Occu: Household, R/o Bensur, Tq. Patoda, District Beed.

¶10

1. Kumari Shital D/o Rajabhau Sagare Age : 23 years, Occ: Agri & Household R/o. As above.

¶11

Rajabhau s/o. Dashrath Sagare Age : 49 years, Occu: Health Assistant R/o. C/o.Primary Health Center, Limba Ganesh, Tq & Dist : Beed. … RESPONDENTS

¶12

... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. N. L. Jadhav AGP for Respondent - State: Mrs. R. P. Gour

habeeb

1/3

954.wp.1756.19.odt

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 7^th February, 2019

¶18

ORAL ORDER :

¶19

Heard Mr. Jadhav, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

A very limited grievance is raised in the petition and on the basis of that grievance, the prayer clause 'B' is made. The petitioner is a resident of village Bensur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. The petitioner was elected as a Deputy Sarpanch of village Bensur. The respondent No. 3 and 4 were also elected as the Sarpanch and Member of the Panchayat respectively. It is stated in the petition that the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, in connivance with each other made encroachment on the Grampanchayat land. The petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 – The Collector, Beed, by filing a complaint, seeking disqualification of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under the provisions of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 under Section 14(J-3) read with Section 16.

¶21

The learned counsel submitted that there is stipulation of period for decision of the complaint and though the complaint is submitted to the competent authority on 25.07.2018 and though the notices are issued to the parties, there is no further progress in the

habeeb

2/3

954.wp.1756.19.odt

matter. The submission of learned counsel is delay in decision would frustrate the object of approaching the competent authority.

¶26

In view of the above referred facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for directions as per prayer clause (B). In view of the submissions of learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, we allow the petition partly by directing the respondent No. 2 – the Collector, Beed to decide the complaint submitted to him on 27.07.2018 as expeditiously as possible and not later then 12 weeks from the date of order of this Court.

¶27

(S. M. GAVHANE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶28

habeeb

¶29

3/3

Sushila Purushottam Arsul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Purushottam Arsul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Laxman Pandurang Madhavpurkar Vs Piyush Khare the Chief General Manager and Another

Ravindra Dnyanoba Reddy and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa through It Secretary Pravin Yadavrao Ranpise Vs Gulab Dattarao Suryawanshi and Others

Sangita Dharamsing Ade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amin Raju Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Pandit Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others