Allowed

Ramdas Maruti Dhage v. Sandeep Gulab Tambe and Ors.

Bombay HC7 May 2024WP/5970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of a stay application by the Additional Divisional Commissioner under Article 227. The court held that since encroachment is a question of fact, the lower authority should have heard both sides before rejecting the stay. The order refusing stay was quashed, and the main order stayed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order refusing stay quashed; order of disqualification stayed pending appeal; direction given to decide appeal within six weeks.

Ramdas Maruti Dhage Vs Sandeep Gulab Tambe… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

5-wp5970-2024.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5970 OF 2024

¶5

Digitally signed byATUL ATULGANESH GANESHKULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2024.05.07 14:32:35 +0530

¶6

Ramdas Maruti Dhage… Petitioner
V/s.

¶7

Sandeep Gulab Tambe & Ors.… Respondents

¶8

Mr. Chaitanya B. Nikte with Ms. Esha Malik & Ms.
Ritvija Kale i/by Mr. Prajit S. Sahane for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Lalasaheb Bandal for respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr. J.P. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.2 to 5 – State.

¶11

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED:MAY 7, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner challenges order passed by the Additional
Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune rejecting application
for stay of order of disqualification dated 11 December 2023
passed by the District Collector, Pune disqualifying petitioner
under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
Act, 1958.

¶15

2.The petitioner filed statutory appeal before the Appellate
Authority. However, by the impugned order, the Appellate
Authority has rejected the application for stay.

¶16

¶17

5-wp5970-2024.doc

¶18

3.The statutory appeal provided under a Statute enabling
disqualified person to challenge order of disqualification would be
rendered illusory if the Appellate Authority rejects the application
for stay on perfunctory reasons. The result of rejection of
application for stay will be that during pendency of the statutory
appeal challenging disqualification, the person will be disqualified.
To obviate such incongruous situation, in the facts of the case, it is
necessary that the Appellate Authority ought to have granted stay
and should have fixed the appeal immediately.

¶19

4.The question of encroachment being a question of fact, the
petitioner is entitled to urge before the Appellate Authority that
the finding of fact recorded by the District Collector holding
petitioner encroached over the Government property needs to be
considered by taking into consideration material produced by both
sides. Therefore, in the facts of the case, I am satisfied that the
Appellate Authority ought to have granted stay. Hence, following
order would meet ends of justice.

¶20

a)Impugned order dated 4 April 2024 passed by the
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune
refusing to grant stay is quashed and set aside;

¶21

b)During pendency of the appeal, order dated 11
December 2023 passed by the District Collector, Pune in
Grampanchayat Dispute Application No.25 of 2021 shall
remain stayed;

¶22

¶23

5-wp5970-2024.doc

¶24

c)The Additional Divisional Commissioner shall decide
the appeal within six weeks from today;

¶25

d) Parties shall appear before the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 13 May 2024 at 10.30 a.m.;

¶26

5.The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No
costs.

¶27

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶28

Ramdas Maruti Dhage v. Sandeep Gulab Tambe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas Maruti Dhage v. Sandeep Gulab Tambe 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

Similar cases

Rajesh Laxmichand Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Deputy and Anr.

Raakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal Vs the Additional Commissioner Kokan Division Mumbai and Ors.

Bhimaji Mukund Mhatre and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Khanderao Genba Bhorde and Ors. vs Swapnil Ashok Bhorde and Ors.

Bhairavnath Bhujalashayeen Matsya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Kusgaon Throu. Its Chief Promotor vs Vaghjai Bhujalashayeen Matsya Vyavysay Co-Op Society Ltd. Kusgaon

M/S Ace Business Form Pvt. Ltd. Thorou. Director Shashi R Sharma vs Deputy Registrar K East Ward Cooperative Societies and Ors.