Santosh Ramesh Waghela and Ors. v. Santosh Sakharam Bhore and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petition challenging remand by Divisional Commissioner of a Sarpanch disqualification matter. Court refused interim relief restricting the Sarpanch's policy decisions and directed final hearing at admission stage on 2 January 2025 with no further adjournments.
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
8 Wp-12495-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12495 OF 2024.
Santosh Ramesh Waghela and Others. ...Petitioners. Versus Santosh Sakharam Bhore and Others. ...Respondents. ——————
Mr. Drupad S. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Yogesh P. Morbale for Respondent No.1. Mr. Shantanu S. Kalekar for Respondent No.5. Ms. Aloka Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent-State.
—————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : December 19, 2024.
P. C. :
1. Once again, accommodation is sought by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 who has been held disqualified by the Collector and the matter has been remanded by the Divisional Commissioner to the Collector for fresh consideration which is assailed in the present petition.
2. Repeated adjournments are been sought by Respondent No.1 who is enjoying benefit of order of remand and continuing as Sarpanch. Although it is contended by Mr. Patil that no policy decision should be taken by Sarpanch, the same will have an impact on the working of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the said relief. At the same time, the matter is required to be heard finally at admission stage.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Santosh Ramesh Waghela
- respondent
Santosh Sakharam Bhore
Coram
Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
8 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court