Allowed

Chetana Rakesh Mahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2024WP/18424/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order granted ad-interim relief staying the operation of orders disqualifying the Petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, pending the hearing of her writ petition challenging the disqualification on grounds of encroachment allegations.

What did the court decide?

Stay imposed on the operation, execution, and effect of the impugned orders of Disqualification dated 04.10.2024 and 02.05.2024 pending hearing and final disposal.

Chetana Rakesh Mahale vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

48 Wp-18424-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 18424 OF 2024.

¶5

Chetana Rakesh Mahale Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Others.

¶7

...Petitioner.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Anuj Tiwari for Petitioner. Ms. Sayli Wani for Respondent No.6. Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶10

——————

¶11

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : December 16, 2024.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

1. By this petition, the challenge is to the order of disqualification of the Petitioner who was elected as Sarpanch.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for Petitioner would point out that the encroachment was alleged in respect of Property bearing No. 383 which was in the name of petitioner’s mother-in-law and there was material produced to show that petitioner was residing separately from mother-in-law. He would further submit that though the encroachment was alleged in respect of Gram Panchayat Property No. 383, subsequently, the report was submitted which included encroachment in respect of Property bearing No.922 belonging to petitioner’s husband after the petitioner had submitted her reply and the copy thereof was not furnished to the Petitioner. He would further

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

Sairaj

¶17

48 Wp-18424-2024.doc

¶18

point out the finding in the order of Collector that the encroachment alleged is of the first floor balcony over the road.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for Respondent No.6 seeks time to file reply.

¶20

4. The complaint was made in respect of the encroachment of Gram Panchayat Property No. 383. The reply of the petitioner prima facie demonstrates that petitioner was not beneficiary of the said encroachment as she was residing separately which is evidenced from the fact that subsequently Property bearing No.922 belonging to husband is also stated to be an encroachment. The Gram Panchayat Property No. 922 stated to be belonging to her husband would infact substantiate that she was residing separately from the mother-in-law and therefore, not a continued beneficiary of the encroachment. That apart, prima facie it appears from the impugned order that the encroachment as far as Gram Panchayat Property No.383 is concerned is as regards a balcony on the first floor protruding over the road.

¶21

5. Prima facie case for grant of ad-interim relief is made out. Adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘c’ is granted which reads thus:

¶22

c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, kindly grant stay to effect, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.49/2024 as well as order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 Upper District Collector, Malegaon in File No. Gram Panchayat/Dispute Application/54/2023.

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

Sairaj

¶25

48 Wp-18424-2024.doc

¶26

6. List the petition for further consideration on 17^th January, 2025

¶27

under the caption for ‘Circulation’.

¶28

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶29

3 of 3

¶30

Sairaj

Chetana Rakesh Mahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetana Rakesh Mahale 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bajaj Finance Limited., vs Nagson and Company

Suresh Nemchand Saraf vs Roha Dye Chem Private Limited

Ashutosh Enterprises Proprietor Shri Sandeep Shukla vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Ltd. vs Cloudstrats Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Ltd. vs Cloudstrats Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Ltd. vs Cloudstrats Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.