Dismissed

Ramkor Vikram Maske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Sept 2021WP/2196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, disposed of multiple writ petitions and civil applications. The court noted parties were disputing authority without merits. Regarding reservation, data for SC population was missing, so the specific requests could not be considered. All petitions were disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions and civil applications were disposed of. No costs were awarded.

Ramkor Vikram Maske Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

961 WP 2196 of 2021 and ors.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

961 WRIT PETITION NO. 2196 OF 2021

¶5

RAMKOR VIKRAM MASKE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. Anant Devakate & Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities. Mr. A. B. Kadethnakar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶9

AND

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 2193 OF 2021

¶11

VIVEK VINAYAKRAO GHARE VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶13

Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶14

Mr. A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities. Mr. A. B. Kadethnakar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶15

AND

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 3224 OF 2021

¶17

KAVITA RAMESH RATHOD VERSUS

¶18

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶19

Mr. Milind M. Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities. Mr. A. B. Kadethnakar, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr. Niteen V. Gaware, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

¶20

¶21

961 WP 2196 of 2021 and ors.odt

¶22

AND

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO. 3903 OF 2021

¶24

KISHOR ASHOK TRIBHUVAN VERSUS

¶25

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶26

Mr. P. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶27

Mr. A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities. Mr. A. B. Kadethnakar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶28

AND

¶29

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6959 OF 2021 IN WP/3224/2021

¶30

MACHINDRANATH DEORAO DHUS VERSUS

¶31

KAVITA RAMESH RATHOD AND OTHERS

¶32

Mr. Niteen V. Gaware, Advocate for Applicant.

¶33

Mr. Milind M. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities. Mr. A. B. Kadethnakar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr. Anant R. Devakate, Advocate for Respondent No.6

¶34

AND

¶35

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9123 OF 2021 IN WP/2196/2021

¶36

RAMKOR VIKRAM MASKE

¶37

VERSUS

¶38

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶39

Mr. Anant R. Devakate, Advocate for Applicant.

¶40

Mr. A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities. Mr. A. B. Kadethnakar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶41

961 WP 2196 of 2021 and ors.odt

¶42

¶43

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 07^th September, 2021.

¶44

P.C.:

¶45

. It appears that more than merits of the matters, the parties

¶46

and officers are more concerned with showing their authority and it appears that the buck is being passed from one officer to another officer be it BDO and/or Tahsildar at the relevant time.

¶47

2 If it is the case of the Tahsildar that the BDO has acted beyond his authority and is responsible for not preparing the correct record, then it is for the superior authorities to take action against him and if the BDO feels that his record is absolutely in accordance with the procedure and that the changes are at the behest of the Tahsildar, in that case also the said aspect can be looked after by the superior authorities.

¶48

3 The allegations are made against each other.

¶49

4 One of the contentions of the State Authority is that the

¶50

petitioners in the writ petitions are guilty of producing frivolous documents. For example the document dated 13^th November, 2020

¶51

4 961 WP 2196 of 2021 and ors.odt

¶52

supposedly issued from the office of Tahsildar Mantha. The enquiry

¶53

can be conducted in respect of the said document.

¶54

5 The Collector may proceed further. It may call for the original from the petitioner of Writ Petition No.3903 of 2021. In case, such a document is called for, the petitioner would be bound to produce the same before the Collector and if the office of the Collector finds some malpractices in it, he is free to proceed further with appropriate steps including the steps for setting the criminal law in motion.

¶55

6 As far as the merits of the matters are concerned, it is stated that the post of Sarpanch Panchayat Kendhali was never reserved for SC since the year 1995 and for the first time it is being reserved for SC. No illegality can be said in the same. In case of Limbkheda, the past of Sarpanch is reserved for General Women. We do not have any data placed either by the petitioners or the respondents to show the percentage of the population of SC. The request is made that the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Limbkheda ought to be reserved for SC. As no data exist about the percentage of the population of SC, the case cannot be considered from that point of view also.

¶56

¶57

961 WP 2196 of 2021 and ors.odt

¶58

7 With these observations and directions, the writ petitions

¶59

are disposed of. No costs.

¶60

8 Civil Application No.6959 of 2021 and Civil Application No.9123 of 2021 are also disposed of.

¶61

[ R. N. LADDHA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶62

nga

Ramkor Vikram Maske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkor Vikram Maske 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

Kailas Arjun Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chhagan Murlidhar Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anantrao Dagdu Garde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjivdeepsingh Ranjitsingh Nirh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kavita Ramesh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Ashok Tribhuvan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Otehrs