Disposed¶21

Sau. Nalini W/O Makhram Rathod v. Presiding Officer, Grampanchayat, Januna, Barshitakli, Akola and Others

Bombay HC26 Aug 2025WP/1282/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nagpur Bench Bombay High Court 2025; withdrawal of writ petition; alternate remedy; no confidence motion; Gram Sabha ratification; computation of limitation excluding period of litigation; seven-day window for fresh filing; Collector; interim order dated 10.03.2025 continued for seven days; de-tagging of Writ Petition No. 571 of 2025; Maharashtra panchayat dispute; disposed of as withdrawn; Kilor & Kadethankar JJ.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal permitted; Collector directed, while counting limitation, to consider the period spent in pursuing this writ petition, subject to filing of the fresh proceeding within seven days; interim order dated 10.03.2025 continued for seven days; Writ Petition No. 571 of 2025 de-tagged. ¶21

Sau. Nalini W/O Makhram Rathod Vs Presiding Officer, Grampanchayat, Januna, Barshitakli, Akola and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the no confidence motion could proceed, given the petitioner's plea that the limitation for filing such a proceeding had lapsed and the respondents' plea that the petition was premature (pre-ratification by the Gram Sabha) - raised but not adjudicated; petition withdrawn.

¶14

Court's answer

Permission granted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition on her request, in view of the alternate remedy available to challenge the no confidence motion.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

While counting the limitation, the Collector shall consider the period which is spent in pursuing the present writ petition, if the petitioner files the (fresh) proceeding within seven days.

¶20

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.ratio¶21
Interim order dated 10.03.2025 (not to give effect to the decision of Gram sabha if adverse to the petitioner) shall continue for seven days from the date of this order.ratio¶22
Writ petition No. 571 of 2025 directed to be de-tagged from this petition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench - Writ Petition (WP) No. 1282 of 2025 - Sau. Nalini W/o. Makhram Rathod v. Presiding Officer to the meeting dated 27.02.2024 and others - Coram: Anil S. Kilor & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. (August 26, 2025). Petition filed (per counsel) immediately after passing of a no confidence motion and before its ratification by the Gram Sabha. On the petitioner's request, made in view of the alternate remedy available to challenge the no confidence motion (limitation for which proceeding was submitted to have lapsed), the court permitted withdrawal and directed that, while counting the limitation, the Collector shall consider the period spent in pursuing the present writ petition if the proceeding is filed within seven days. Interim order dated 10.03.2025 restraining giving effect to the Gram sabha decision (if adverse to the petitioner) continued for seven days. Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn; Writ Petition No. 571 of 2025 de-tagged.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:8427-DB

¶2

¶3

920.wp.1282.2025.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 1282 OF 2025 Sau. Nalini W/o. Makhram Rathod

¶6

.Vs.

¶7

Presiding Officer to the meeting dated 27.02.2024 and others

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶9

and Registrar's Orders.

¶10

Mr S. D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr H. D. Marathe, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10/State Mr R. D. Karode, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 8

¶12

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 26, 2025.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Mr S. D. Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition, in view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner to raise a challenge to the no confidence motion. He points out that the petition was filed within limitation i.e. immediately after passing of no confidence motion. He submits that now because of passage of time, the limitation for filing such proceeding is lapsed.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr R. D. Karode, learned counsel submits that the petition is premature, for the reason that before such decision was ratified by the Gram Sabha, the petition came to be filed. He further points out that the

¶16

920.wp.1282.2025.odt

¶17

¶18

limitation should have counted from the date of meeting of Gram Sabha which was held on 12.03.2025.

¶19

Be that as it may, in view of request made by the petitioner, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition.

¶20

While counting the limitation, the Collector shall consider the period which is spent in pursuing the present writ petition, if the petitioner files the proceeding within seven days from today.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, as withdrawn.

¶22

The interim order not to give effect to the decision of Gram sabha if it is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, granted by order dated 10.03.2025 shall continue for seven days from today.

¶23

Writ petition No. 571 of 2025 be de-tagged.

¶24

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶25

Namrata

Sau. Nalini W/O Makhram Rathod v. Presiding Officer, Grampanchayat, Januna, Barshitakli, Akola and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Nalini W/O Makhram Rathod v. Presiding Officer, Grampanchayat, Januna, Barshitakli, Akola and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mugutrao S/O Narayanrao Deshmukh, Thr. P.O.a., Sunil S/O. Mugutrao Deshmukh vs the Honble Minister, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and General Administration, Mumbai and Ors.

M/S Earnwell Trader Private Limited, Nagpur, Thr. Authorised Person, Pankaj G. Kaushal vs State of Maha., Thr. Urban Development Dept., Thr. Prin. Secretory, Asheemkumar S.K. Gupta and Anr.

Chandrashekhar Rambhau Khedkar (Patil) and Others vs Recovery Officer, the Yavatmal Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Yavatmal and Ors.

Dr. Parag S/O. Rameshrao Kawale Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Ors.

Prakash S/O Bhagwantrao Bobade and Others Vs the Asst. Registrar, Coop. Societies (Milk) and Taluka Coop. Election Returning Officer and Ors.

Ghanshyam Gulabrao Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Maha. Industrial Devpt. Corp., Mumbai and Ors.