Petitioner challenged disqualification of State employees for allegedly taking benefit of a Village Panchayat contract. Court found work was under MGNREGA. Writ dismissed holding no case for interference.
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.
22-wp-8120-2024.odt
(1)
2024:BHC-AUG:16942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8120 OF 2024
BALU SHRIMANT TODEKAR VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Mr. Suresh S. Pidgewar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondents-State.
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 05th AUGUST, 2024.
P.C.:-
22-wp-8120-2024.odt
(2)
themselves or their partners under the Village Panchayat. Both the Authorities have observed that work in question is not related to Village Panchayat, but same is part of MGNREGA. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere in Writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE
Devendra/August-2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether society members are to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(G) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959.
Balu Shrimant Todekar
The State of Maharashtra
S. G. Chapalgaonkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
