Disposed

Smt. Surekha Sachin Patil v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Ld. Minister for Rural and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2023WP/2514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted leave to delete respondents and issued directions for the expedited hearing and disposal of an appeal filed under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1955, while expressly reserving judgment on the merits of the underlying dispute pending the appellate hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; appeal fixed for hearing on 15/03/2023 to be decided within four weeks; interim stay order eligible for hearing if appeal delayed.

Smt. Surekha Sachin Patil Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

15-wp-2514-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2514 OF 2023

¶4

Smt.Surekha Sachin Patil (Sarpanch Grampanchayat Varedi) Age 31 years, Occu. Housewife R/o. Varedi, Taluka Pen, District Raigad.

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Ld.Minister for Rural Development, Department, Mantralaya. Mumbai-400032.

¶8

Shri.Samir Vithoba Patil Age: 39 years. Occu.:Service R/o.Varedi, Post Hamarapur Taluka Pen, District:Raigad

¶9

Smt.Jayashri Gajanan Waghmare Age: 31 years, Occu;Housewife Nos. 2 to 3 R/o.Kharsapoli, Post Hamarapur, Taluka Pen, Dist.Raigad. ..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Rahul More for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S.Bhende AGP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶11

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA, AND GAURI GODSE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 6^th March 2023

Jyoti Mane 1 of 4

15-wp-2514-2023.doc

P.C.

. Heard learned advocate for the Petitioner. He seeks leave to delete the Respondent No.2 and 3. Leave is granted to the Petitioner to delete Respondent No.2 and 3. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.

¶17

Rule. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 waives service of Notice. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶18

This petition is filed for seeking directions against the Respondent No.1 to decide the stay application as well as Appeal under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1955 which is filed for challenging the order of learned Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

¶19

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No.1 placed reliance on record communication dated 01/03/2023 thereby intimating that the Appeal is fixed for hearing through Video Conferencing on 15/03/2023 at 3.00p.m. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner states that though the Appeal is on board on 15/03/2023 there is urgency in the matter, as elections are likely to be declared anytime. Hence, he submits that in the event appeal is not heard on the

¶20

Jyoti Mane 2 of 4

¶21

15-wp-2514-2023.doc

¶22

date fixed, then his application for stay on the date fixed for hearing of the said, application for stay may be decided.

¶23

Since the appeal is already fixed for hearing on 15/03/2023, this writ petition can be decided by issuing following directions:

¶24

a) The appeal filed by the Petitioner bearing No.BPN-2022PK-202/PR-6 fixed for hearing on 15/03/2023 at 3.00p.m. as per communication dated 01/03/2023 to be heard on the assigned date. In the event, the appeal is not heard on the assigned date, the application filed by the Petitioner for interim stay shall be heard and decided on the assigned date. b) Appeal filed by the Petitioner to be decided within a maximum period of four weeks from the assigned date and the order to be communicated to the Petitioner within the period of one week from the date of decision.

¶25

c) In the event, any adverse order is passed against the Petitioner, the order will not be given effect to, for a period of 2 weeks from the communication of such order. d) It is made clear that we have not expressed any view on the merits of the writ petition as well as the appeal filed by the writ petitioners.

¶26

e) All contentions of the parties are kept open

¶27

Jyoti Mane 3 of 4

¶28

15-wp-2514-2023.doc

¶29

f) If under unavoidable circumstances, the appeal or the application for interim stay is not heard on the assigned date, the Petitioner will be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings for restoration of the present Writ Petition and seek necessary reliefs.

¶30

g) Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶31

f) Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

GAURI GODSE, J.

¶33

R.D.DHANUKA, J.

¶34

Jyoti Mane 4 of 4

Smt. Surekha Sachin Patil v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Ld. Minister for Rural and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Surekha Sachin Patil v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Ld. Minister for Rural and Anr.

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

Sharad Manohar Keni Vs Sanjay Mukherjee, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Cidco

Ganesh Shreehari Sarade Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Anr.

Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.