Dismissed

Ayub Sallauddin Shaikh v. Ld. District Collector of Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2022WP/10103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a disqualification order against the respondent Sarpanch under Section 14-B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The High Court disposed of the petition quashing the impugned order against the respondent in a related writ petition but denied the petitioner's request to let him act as Sarpanch since the Supreme Court had refused his reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayers to set aside the impugned judgment and to be permitted to act as Sarpanch were not granted.

Ayub Sallauddin Shaikh Vs Ld. District Collector of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

8-wp-10103-2022.doc

¶2

Pallavi

¶3

Digitally signed PALLAVIMAHENDRAWARGAONKAR by PALLAVIMAHENDRAWARGAONKARDate:2022.10.10 12:34:56 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.10103 OF 2022

¶7

Ayub Sallauddin Shaikh … Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ld. District Collector of Pune and Anr.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Mr. Manoj A. Patil i/b Ashish P. Pawar, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent no.1

¶13

Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Ranjit D. Shinde i/b Ajinkya M.
Udane, for Respondent No.2.

¶14

Mr. Rahul Bhosale, Respondent No.2 present in person.

¶15

CORAM:MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED:4th OCTOBER 2022

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner,

¶18

Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr.
S.H. Kankal, learned AGP for Respondent no.1.

¶19

2.The Petitioner has sought the following substantive reliefs
in the Petition :

¶20

(b)This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and or direction and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dt. 22/07/2019 passed by the Ld. District Collector of Pune in Dispute Application No.1225 of 2018 and to disqualify the Respondent No.2

1 of 3

Pallavi

8-wp-10103-2022.doc

as a Sarpanch/Member of Grampanchayat Kurkumbh,
Tal.: Daund, Dist.: Pune u/s 14-B of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

¶25

(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and or direction and to allow and permit the Petitioner to act and to discharge the duties as a Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Kurkumbh, Tal.: Daund, Dist.: Pune.”

¶26

3.As far as the relief regarding the impugned order dated
22nd July 2019, the said order is set aside by a separate order passed
today in Writ Petition No.10097 of 2022. The present Petitioner is not
a complainant in the Dispute Application No.1225 of 2018. In any
case, as the said order is set aside, prayer clause (b) is worked out. Mr.
Manoj Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly states that nothing
survives as regards reliefs sought in prayer clause (b).

¶27

4.As far as prayer (c) is concerned, the Petitioner is seeking
direction to allow and permit the Petitioner to act and discharge the
duties as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kurkumb, Tal. Daund, District
Pune. The Supreme Court by order dated 26th July 2022 passed in
Civil Appeal No. 4925 of 2022 [SLP (C) No. 552 of 2022] has refused

2 of 3

Pallavi

8-wp-10103-2022.doc

to grant the said relief to the Petitioner and observed as follows :

¶32

“Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 did seek to
contend that in the interregnum period, he has been
elected and his election cannot be set aside in this
collateral manner. We fail to appreciate the submission for
the reason that if the unseating of the appellant was by an
incompetent authority, that itself will entitle the appellant
to be reinstated again and thus, all acts done after that
including the appointment of respondent No.7 would not
be sustainable in law.”

¶33

5.Thus as per the present position, Respondent No.2
continues to be Sarpanch and his disqualification proceedings are
remanded back. There is no order passed disqualifying the Respondent
no. 2. Thus, there is no impediment for Respondent No.2 to continue
as Sarpanch. Therefore, no relief can be granted in terms of prayer
clause (c).

¶34

6.Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as

¶35

to costs.

¶36

 (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J)

¶37

3 of 3

Ayub Sallauddin Shaikh v. Ld. District Collector of Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Sallauddin Shaikh v. Ld. District Collector of Pune 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

Shankar Namdeo Sule vs Namdeo Bhima Sule (Deceased Thr.Lrs) Sou. Sulabai Namdeo Sule and Ors.

Shri Bapurao Vithalrao Bhongle and Anr. Vs Shri Suresh Baban Tamhane and Ors.

M/S. Bharat Udyog Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Ramchandra Padnekar Vs Mrs. Anuradha Bhagwan Shirodkar

Shri Harishankar Ramanand Trivedi and Anr. Vs the Deputy District Registrar of Co-Op. Hou. Societies and Cometent Authority and Ors.

Sandip Popat Bhagwat Vs Ld. District Collector of Pune and Anr.