Disposed

Sadhana Santosh Datale v. Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Sept 2024WP/13554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the removal of a female Sarpanch under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The petitioner, aggrieved by a dismissal of her appeal and stay application inordinate delay, sought a speedy disposal. The High Court directed the competent authority to hear and decide the stay application within two weeks and the appeal within eight weeks, and stayed the implementat

What did the court decide?

Direction to hear and decide stay application within two weeks; direction to hear and decide appeal within eight weeks; interim stay on implementation of removal order and transfer letter pending stay

Sadhana Santosh Datale vs Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

11-ASWP-13554-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 13554 OF 2024

¶4

Sadhana Santosh Datale …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division & Ors …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Anil Dsouza, a/w Yogesh Rawool, Ernest Tuscano & Mark D’britto, i/b S.S. Redekar, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.GP, a/w Y.D. Patil, AGP, for RespondentState.

¶9

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 09, 2024

¶10

PC :

¶11

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to Respondent No.4 to decide the Petitioner’s Appeal alongwith the Stay Application dated 29^th August, 2024 as expeditiously as possible. It is also prayed that a stay be granted of the impugned order dated 12^th August, 2024 passed by Respondent No.1.

¶12

Digitally signed by ASHWINI ASHWINI JANARDAN JANARDAN VALLAKATI VALLAKATI Date: 2024.10.15 10:26:33 +0530

¶13

The facts of the present matter are in a very narrow compass. In October 2022, the Petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Village Aalonde, Tal. Vikramagad, Dist. Palghar in the “Scheduled Tribe Women” category. Thereafter, due to certain infractions, and which are

¶14

Page 1 of 5 October 09, 2024

¶15

Ashwini Vallakati

¶16

11-ASWP-13554-2024.doc

¶17

not admitted by the Petitioner, Respondent No.2, on 7^th September, 2023 issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (for short “ the said Act ”). This show cause notice called upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why she should not be removed from the post of the Sarpanch.

¶18

On 18^th September, 2023, the Petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, on 13^th February, 2024 Respondent No.2 forwarded a recommendation to Respondent No.1 recommending action against the Petitioner under Section 39(1) of the said Act. After the aforesaid recommendation was forwarded to Respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 also gave a personal hearing (through V.C.) to the Petitioner on 25^th July, 2024. Thereafter, on 12^th August, 2024 Respondent No.1 accepted the said recommendation and passed an order under Section 39(1) and removed the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch.

¶19

Being aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 39(3) before the Hon’ble Minister for Rural Development, State of Maharashtra, alongwith an Application for stay of the impugned order. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that till date neither the Appeal nor the Stay Application has been heard and in the

¶20

Page 2 of 5 October 09, 2024

¶21

Ashwini Vallakati

¶22

11-ASWP-13554-2024.doc

¶23

meanwhile, on 25^th September, 2024 a letter is issued by the Block Development Officer to the Gram Vikas Adhikari stating that the charge of the office of Sarpanch be handed over to the Deputy Sarpanch until the election for the office of the Sarpanch are conducted. Being aggrieved by this action the Petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction inter alia praying that the Appeal and Stay Application filed by the Petitioner be heard by Respondent No.4 as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has filed a Stay Application seeking a stay of the impugned order dated 12^th August, 2024. This was filed as far back as on 29^th August, 2024. Despite this no decision has been taken on the Stay Application. He, therefore, submitted that Respondent No.4 be directed to at least hear the Stay Application as expeditiously as possible and in the meanwhile to stay the implementation not only of the impugned order but also of the letter dated 25^th September, 2024 issued by the Block Development Officer to the Gram Vikas Adhikari.

¶25

On the other hand, the Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondents, stated that he is unaware whether the letter issued by the Block Development Officer to the Gram Vikas Adhikari dated 25^th

¶26

Page 3 of 5 October 09, 2024

¶27

Ashwini Vallakati

¶28

11-ASWP-13554-2024.doc

¶29

September, 2024 is implemented or otherwise. He submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to grant any stay, the aforesaid aspect should be clarified.

¶30

Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the Learned AGP, we are of the view that we can dispose of the above Writ Petition at the admission stage by passing the following directions:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

a) Respondent No.4 is requested to hear and decide the Stay Application filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two weeks from today.

¶33

b) Respondent No.4 is also requested to hear and decide the Appeal filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶34

c) In the meanwhile, and without prejudice to the rights

¶35

Page 4 of 5 October 09, 2024

¶36

Ashwini Vallakati

¶37

11-ASWP-13554-2024.doc

¶38

and contentions of the parties, it is directed that until the Stay Application is heard, the letter dated 25^th September, 2024 issued by the Block Development Officer to the Gram Vikas Adhikari shall not be implemented, if not already done so.

¶39

d) The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶41

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶42

[ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶43

Page 5 of 5 October 09, 2024

¶44

Ashwini Vallakati

Sadhana Santosh Datale v. Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhana Santosh Datale 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sou. Pooja Shreyas Dhanawade vs Shreyas Shrikant Dhanawade

Dhiraj Tanaji Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Medical Officer and Registrar of Marriages, Hadapsar Mundwa Ward

Nirmala Tavares vs Brian Rudolph Tavares

Sunil Pandurang Mantri vs Maharashtra Savings and 36 Ors.

Palak Sunil Manyal vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Adam Ibrahim Mujawar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.