Prakash Krishnat Dhangar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Prakash Krishnat Dhangar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with requests/directions to the Hon'ble Minister: to decide the pending Revision expeditiously (without a fixed time frame) and to decide the application for stay preferably within three weeks of communication of the order; Petitioner to appear before the Hon'ble Minister with a copy of the order on 12 September 2025 at 3.00 p.m.; no order as to costs; all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Hon'ble Minister should decide the Petitioner's pending Revision and its application for stay expeditiously, in view of the apprehension that the Respondent may declare elections, prejudicing the Petitioner.

Court's answer

The Court was not inclined to fix a time frame for deciding the Revision, but requested the Hon'ble Minister to consider deciding the Revision preferred by the Petitioner expeditiously.

Ratio / Principle

The Court requested the Hon'ble Minister to decide the application for stay as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Key takeaways

The Petitioner was directed to remain present before the Hon'ble Minister along with a copy of the order on 12 September 2025 at 3.00 p.m.ratio¶19
All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Kolhapur Circuit Bench) disposed of on 8 September 2025. The Petitioner had been removed as Sarpanch under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act by order dated 20 June 2025; his Revision (Exhibit 'E') filed before the Hon'ble Minister on 25 June 2025, praying for stay of the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, remained undecided, as did his stay application. Declining to fix a time frame for the Revision, the Court requested the Hon'ble Minister to decide the Revision expeditiously and the stay application preferably within three weeks of communication of the order; the Petitioner was to remain present before the Minister with a copy of the order on 12 September 2025 at 3.00 p.m. No order as to costs; all contentions of the parties expressly kept open.

507-WP-11164-2025.doc

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.11164 OF 2025

Prakash Krishnat Dhangar ] Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra through Secretary ] Rural Development Department ] Mantralaya, Mumbai and others ] Respondents

Mr. Rahul Walvekar a/w Mr. Shantanu Patil and Mr. Kunal Nalawade, for Petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Deokar, A.G.P, for Respondent – State.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ

DATE : 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2025. P.C:

Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.

Heard Mr. Walvekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Deokar, learned A.G.P, for Respondent – State.

The Petitioner was removed as “Sarpanch” under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act by an order dated 20^th June, 2025. The Petitioner has filed a Revision ( Exhibit “E” ) before the Hon’ble Minister on 25th June, 2025 which is at page 40 of the paper book. In the said Revision, the Petitioner has prayed for granting stay to the orders passed by the

1 of 2

SHAILAJA Digitally signed bySHAILAJA SHRIKANT SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2025.09.09 HALKUDE 10:31:49 +0530

507-WP-11164-2025.doc

Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that an application for stay is not being heard by the Hon’ble Minister. The apprehension is that the Respondent may declare elections, in which case, the Petitioner would be prejudiced.

Though we are not inclined to fix a time frame for deciding the Revision, however, we request the Hon’ble Minister to consider deciding the Revision preferred by the Petitioner expeditiously. So far as application for stay is concerned, we request the Hon’ble Minister to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The Petitioner to remain present before the Hon’ble Minister along with copy of this order on 12^th September, 2025 at 3.00 p.m.

The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

All contention of the parties are expressly kept open.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH. J.]

[M.S. KARNIK, J.]

2 of 2