Disposed¶26

Mohan Rajaram Khade and Anr. v. Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2025WP/12602/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sarpanch removal; Section 39 Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959; stay of removal order; Minister Rural Development and Panchayat Raj; Division Commissioner Konkan Division; Village Panchayat Rasal; Taluka Sudhagad; District Raigad; application for intervention; expeditious hearing of appeal; writ petition disposed; Mohan Rajaram Khade; N. J. Jamadar

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to the Minister (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj) to decide the application for intervention expeditiously and, depending on its outcome, the appeal as expeditiously as possible; parties directed to appear before the learned Minister on 13th October 2025. ¶26

Mohan Rajaram Khade and Anr. vs Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal pending before the Minister against the removal of Respondent No.2 from the post of Sarpanch, and the application for intervention filed therein, ought to be heard and decided expeditiously.

¶21

Court's answer

Since Respondent No.2 has been ordered to be removed from the post of Sarpanch under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, it would be expedient that the appeal against the said order is heard expeditiously.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Minister is requested to decide the application for intervention expeditiously and, depending upon the outcome of that application, to decide the appeal also as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.) disposed of a writ petition filed by persons who had sought to intervene in an appeal before the Minister (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj) against the order dated 16th April 2025 of the Division Commissioner, Konkan Division, removing Respondent No.2 from the post of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Rasal, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad, under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, the operation of which had been stayed by the Minister's order dated 7th August 2025 till the hearing of the Appeal. On the petitioners' grievance of delay, the Court held it expedient that the appeal be heard expeditiously, requested the Minister to decide the application for intervention expeditiously and thereafter the appeal as expeditiously as possible, and fixed the parties' appearance before the learned Minister on 13th October 2025. The contention that the petitioners had no locus since their intervention application was yet to be allowed was noted but not adjudicated.

¶1

28-WP-12602-2025.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12602 OF 2025

¶6

Mohan Rajaram Khade & Anr ..Petitioners Versus Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division & Ors …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prashant Raul, with Vivek Thakare & Mandar Shingade, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Dinesh Patankar, for Respondent No.2.

¶9

Mr. Sagar Talekar, for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 3^rd OCTOBER 2025

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 7^th August 2025

ARUN

RAMCHANDRA

SANKPAL

Digitally signed byARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.10.04 10:14:33 +0530

¶18

passed by the Minister (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj), whereby the order passed by the Division Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 16^th April 2025, thereby removing the Respondent No.2 from the post of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Rasal, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad, under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, has been stayed till the hearing of the Appeal.

¶19

1/2

¶20

28-WP-12602-2025.DOC

¶21

The Petitioners have filed an Application for intervention in the said Appeal. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Appeal is not being heard expeditiously.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4-the original complainant submits that the Application for intervention has yet not been allowed and, therefore, the Petitioners as of now have no locus to assail the impugned order.

¶23

Since the Respondent No.2 has been ordered to be removed from the post of Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, it would be expedient that the Appeal against the said order is heard expeditiously.

¶24

The Minister is, therefore, requested to decide the Application for intervention expeditiously and, thereafter, depending upon the outcome of the Application for intervention, decide the Appeal also, as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

The parties shall appear before the learned Minister on 13^th October 2025.

¶26

Petition disposed.

¶27

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶28

2/2

Mohan Rajaram Khade and Anr. v. Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Rajaram Khade and Anr. v. Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hawai Finance Private Limited vs Charmakar Nivara Kendra Grihnirman Sanstha Proposed

Alkabai Makune vs Sahebrao Tryambak Chavan

Mahesh @ Sagar Vijay Zurunge and Anr. vs Kalavati Shashikant Phule and Ors.

The Custodian vs Regarding Assets and Liabilities Position of the Notified Party T. B. Ruia(Since Deceased)

Apollo Tyres Limited vs the Custodian and Ors.

Venkatesh Subramaniam Iyer and Anr. vs Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Operative Societies Mumbai Division and Ors.