Dismissed

Vishnu Krushna More v. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jul 2022WP/7997/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay held a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order of the Divisional Commissioner under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, to be not maintainable as the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 39(3) due to lack of ministerial decision, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief was granted as the petition was dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability.

Vishnu Krushna More Vs Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed by MUGDHA M MUGDHA M PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2022.07.19 18:24:35 +0530

¶2

1 28-WP 7997-22.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7997 OF 2022

¶5

Vishnu Krushna More ... Petitioner Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sagar G. Talekar for the Petitioner. Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji for Respondents No.4.

¶7

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA J.

¶8

DATE : 19TH JULY 2022

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

This Petition seeks to challenge the order dated 20^th June, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1-the Divisional Commissioner in the proceedings initiated at the instance of Respondent No.4 under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 as not maintainable on the ground that Respondent No.4 is not a voter of Village Rasal and further that the application fled by Respondent No.4 before the Divisional Commissioner is not as per the provisions of Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959.

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

Mugdha

¶14

2 28-WP 7997-22.odt

¶15

Mr. Bhangoji, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that there is an alternate remedy against the impugned order provided under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 and as such the Petition is not maintainable.

¶16

Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner at this stage submits that in fact an Appeal has already been fled under the said Section, but since there is no Minister for Rural Development to take a decision, he has fled this Writ Petition. He submits that there is an averment in this regard in Paragraph 10 of the Petition.

¶17

In view of the statutory Appeal having already been fled, this Court is of the view that the Petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

¶18

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

Mugdha

Vishnu Krushna More v. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Krushna More v. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ladkya Rupa Kharpade Vs Laxman Jethya Dombre and Ors.

Avisha Tours and Travels Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Director of Ombudsman (Nbfc) and Anr.

Haridas Mahadev Hipparkar Vs Rajaram Jagannath Nimangire and Ors.

Mrs. Meera Chandrabhan Singh Thakur Sole Prop. of M/S Thakur Developers Vs Competent Auth. and Dist. Deputy Registrar of Co-Op. Soc. Dist. Thane and Ors.

Chandrakant Shankar Adake Vs Veershaiv Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Anant Sadba Shelar Vs State of Maharashtra through Collector, Pune and Ors.