Disposed

Vishwas Ravindra Nagargoje and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Feb 2019WP/1787/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral order disposed of a writ petition at the admission stage, directing the Collector to decide the pending proceedings regarding the disqualification of voters/candidates heard in court. The court refrained from examining merits, noting the limited grievance was pendency.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector, Beed to decide the proceedings initiated on 05/01/2019 on merits, hearing parties if requested, within four weeks.

Vishwas Ravindra Nagargoje and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp1787.19

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1787 OF 2019

¶5

1. Vishwas S/o Ravindra Nagargoje,

¶6

Age 45 Years, Occu. Agriculture District Precident Rashtravadi Congress Party

¶7

R/o Tembhurni, Dist. Shirur(K)

¶8

Tq.Dist. Beed

¶9

1. Rohidas S/o Shankarao Gadekar Age 48 years, Occu. Agriculture President Nagar, Panchayat, Shirur (k) Dist. Beed

¶10

1. Shaikh Nasir S/o Shaikh Lal, Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture Group Leader Rashtravadi Congress, Nagar Panchayat, Shirur(K) Dist. Beed

¶11

..PETITIONERS

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶14

1. The Division Commissioner

¶15

Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

¶16

1. The Collector,

¶17

Beed, Dist. Beed

¶18

1. Meera W/o Dattatray Gadekar, Age Major, Occu.: Councillor, R/o Ward No. 3, Shirpur (K) Tal. Shirpur (K), Dist. Beed

¶19

wp1787.19 (2)

¶20

Kusum W/o Dinkar Haridas Age: Major, Occu: Councillor R/o Ward No.17, Shirpur (K) Tal. Shirpur, Dist. Beed

¶21

Shaikh Shama W/o Shaikh Anwar, Age Major, Occu.: Councillor, Shirpur (K), Tal. Shirpur (K) Dist. Beed

¶22

Asha W/o Sunil Shinde Age Major, Occu.: Councillor, R/o Shirpur (K), Tal. Shirpur (K), Dist. Beed ..RESPONDENTS

¶23

Mr Girish K Thigale (Naik), Advocate for petitioners; Mr K. N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Mr S. R. Shirsat, Advocate for respondent No.5; Mr N. V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶24

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

¶25

DATE : 25^th February, 2019

¶26

ORAL ORDER:

¶27

Heard Mr Girish K Thigale (Naik), learned Counsel for petitioners; Mr K. N. Lokhande, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Mr S. R. Shirsat, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr N. V. Gaware, learned Counsel for respondent No.6.

¶28

As limited grievance is raised in the petition and on the backdrop of that limited grievance, namely, pendency of the

¶29

wp1787.19

¶30

(3)

¶31

proceedings before respondent no.3 Collector, we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage.

¶32

A the proceedings is initiated before the Collector and the same is entered in the inward register of the office of Collector, in view of an endorsement dated 5th January, 2019 of the Inward Clerk. Though the proceedings is not numbered, it seems that this was entered in the inward register. By way of that representation/application/proceedings, the petitioners are seeking disqualification of respondent nos.4 to 7 i.e. the non applicants before respondent no.3 Collector.

¶33

It is submitted by Mr Gaware, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 that the proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioners itself is not tenable.

¶34

Considering the fact that the proceedings is accepted by the office of the Collector on 5th January, 2019, without expressing any opinion on merits of the proceedings and leaving this aspect, namely, assessment of merits to the concerned authority i.e. the Collector, Beed, we are inclined to dispose of the petition at the admission stage. Accordingly, respondent no.3 Collector to take an appropriate decision on the proceedings submitted to him on 5th January, 2019

¶35

(4)

¶36

wp1787.19

¶37

as early as possible and not later than four weeks from the date of the order of this Court. Respondent no.3 Collector may undertake the exercise of deciding proceedings by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, if parties make such a request before him. We further make it clear that if the authority is of the opinion that the proceedings itself cannot be entertained, he may pass a brief order to that effect.

¶38

With above observations and directions, petition is disposed of.

¶39

(S. M. GAVHANE, J.)

¶40

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶41

amj

Vishwas Ravindra Nagargoje and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwas Ravindra Nagargoje and Others 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

Popat Manikrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Al Zaid Jabbar Baghwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dyaneshwar Suryabhan Kolhal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aparna Suresh Bonlawar Vs Sub Divisional Officer Degloor and Another

Shaikh Nisar Nashir and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kunal Bhatesingh Vasave Vs Prinicpal Secretary Rural Development Mantralaya Mumbai