Disposed

Prakash Dinkar Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2024WP/17301/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding removal as Sarpanch, the Bombay High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Appellate Authority to decide a stay application within six weeks and ensuring further vacancy-filling steps await the appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Directions for the Appellate Authority to decide the stay application within six weeks and to ensure vacancy-filling steps remain subject to the appeal's outcome.

Prakash Dinkar Jadhav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.17301 OF 2024

¶3

Prakash Dinkar Jadhav .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Rural Development Department and Ors. .. Respondents

¶4

Mr. Pradeep Gole with Mr. Suraj Shejwal, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.S. Srivastava, Assistant Government Pleader for the RespondentState of Maharashtra.

¶5

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &

¶6

RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ

¶7

DATE : 5^TH DECEMBER 2024.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

The only relief sought by the petitioner is for a direction to be issued to the Appellate Authority – State Government to consider the prayer for grant of interim relief in the Appeal preferred by the petitioner for challenging the order dated 8^th October 2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division. By this order, the petitioner has been removed from the post of “Sarpanch” under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged that order by filing an Appeal.

¶10

Considering the nature of directions proposed to be issued, notice to respondent nos.5 to 15 is dispensed with.

¶11

1/2

¶12

Digitally signed by SNEHA SNEHA ABHAY ABHAY DIXIT DIXIT Date: 2024.12.05 17:04:05 +0530

¶13

10-WP-17301-2024.doc Dixit

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, steps have been taken to fill in the vacancy caused by the removal of the petitioner. On 6^th November 2024, the Collector has directed the Tahsildar to take steps in that regard. The petitioner therefore prays that the stay application that has been preferred along with the Appeal that was filed on 14^th November 2024 be directed to be decided.

¶15

In aforesaid facts, the following directions would serve the ends of justice :-

¶16

(a) The stay application preferred by the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent no.1 in accordance with law and after hearing all parties within a period of six weeks of receipt of copy of this order.

¶17

(b) Any steps taken for filling in the vacancy caused by the removal of the petitioner shall be subject to outcome of the pending Appeal.

¶18

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions. No costs.

¶20

Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.

¶21

2/2

¶22

Digitally signed by SNEHA SNEHA 10-WP-17301-2024.doc ABHAY ABHAY DIXITDate: Dixit DIXIT 2024.12.05 17:03:38 +0530

Prakash Dinkar Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Dinkar Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandhi Natha Rangji Homeopathic Medical College , Solapur Vs Union of India and Ors.

Indian Bank Vs Bhairulal Rameshwarlal Agarwal and Ors.

M/S. Gagangiri Kath Industries Vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Kolhapur and Ors.

Bio Clean System India Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Vs The Commissioner Sangli Miraj and Kupwad Mun Corporation

Chandrakant Shripal Wanjale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Shamrao Shripati Patl Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. of Revneue and Forest Dept and Ors.