Yogesh Rana Prajapati v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Feb 2025WP/8347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Yogesh Prajapati v. State of Maharashtra, WP 8347/2024, Bombay HC, 28-04-2025, Article 226; direction to Tahsildar Kalyan (respondent no.6) to decide petitioner's pending complaint dated 09.05.2023/9 May 2023 (Exh. L) inquiring into alleged illegal sale and transfer of land belonging to Shri Ram Temple, Kalyan, Dist. Thane, to respondent nos.10 and 11, as per Government Resolution dated 30 July 2010 (Exh. H); decide within four weeks, all parties to be heard; rights and contentions kept open; writ petition disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.6 - Tahsildar, Kalyan to consider and decide the petitioner's pending complaint dated 9 May 2023 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks, hearing all parties; no costs. ¶ORDER (iii)

Yogesh Rana Prajapati vs State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶ORDER (iii)

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent no.6 (Tahsildar, Kalyan) to decide the petitioner's complaint dated 09.05.2023 - seeking inquiry into the alleged illegal sale and transfer of land belonging to Shri Ram Temple, Kalyan (Dist. Thane) - as per the Government Resolution dated 30 July 2010, pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition.

¶1

Court's answer

Respondent no.6, i.e., Tahsildar, Kalyan, was directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending complaint dated 9 May 2023 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date the order is made available to him by the petitioner, letting all parties be heard.

¶ORDER (i)

Ratio / Principle

Although there was no written opposition/reply from the respondents, no prejudice would be caused to them by the orders passed, considering the limited relief sought in the petition.

¶4

Key takeaways

All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open (the concluding word 'open.' falls on the following line of the order).obiter¶ORDER (ii)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (G.S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 8347 of 2024, decided 28 April 2025 (Yogesh Prajapati v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction of respondent no.6 - Tahsildar, Kalyan, sought a sole substantive relief: a direction to that Tahsildar to decide his complaint dated 09.05.2023 (Exh. L), which sought an inquiry into the alleged illegal sale and transfer of land belonging to Shri Ram Temple, Kalyan, Dist. Thane, to respondent nos.10 and 11, as per the Government Resolution dated 30 July 2010 (Exh. 'H'), pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition. Observing that the complaint was pending before the Tahsildar, and holding that, given the limited relief sought and the nature of the proposed orders, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents notwithstanding the absence of any written reply, the Court directed the Tahsildar, Kalyan to consider and decide the pending complaint dated 9 May 2023 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks of the order being made available to him by the petitioner, hearing all parties. All rights and contentions were expressly kept open; the writ petition was disposed of in these terms with no costs.

¶1

26-WP-8347-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8347 OF 2024

¶5

Digitally signed by PALLAVI PALLAVIMAHENDRAWARGAONKAR MAHENDRAWARGAONKARDate:2025.05.06 14:00:03 +0530

¶6

Yogesh Prajapati ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Parth Rajput i/b. Talekar & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent – State.

¶8

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 28 APRIL 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶12

prays for the only substantive relief which reads thus :-

¶13

“B. To direct the respondent No.6 to decide the complaint dated 09.05.2023 preferred by the petitioner, as per the Government Resolution dated 30 July 2010 (Exhibit-“H”) pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition.”

¶14

The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent – authorities mainly respondent no.6 i.e. Tahsildar, Kalyan in not deciding the pending complaint of the petitioner dated 9 May 2023 (Exh. L to the petition). Such complaint stems from the petitioner’s grievance in calling upon the said respondents to conduct an inquiry in respect of the allegations of illegal sale and transfer of the land belonging to Shri Ram Temple located at Kalyan, Dist. Thane, to respondent nos.10

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

¶17

26-WP-8347-2024.doc

¶18

and 11. It is to inquire into such allegations of irregularities and illegalities that the petitioner is stated to have filed such complaint. The petitioner would rely on Government Resolution dated 30 July 2010 in support of his complaint.

¶19

We may observe that the complaint of the petitioner dated 9 May 2023 is pending with the Tahsildar, Kalyan for inquiring into alleged illegalities in respect of the affairs of the said Shri Ram Temple located at Thane. The anxiety of the petitioner is that such complaint needs to be taken to its logical conclusion and the same therefore, ought to be looked into and decided in an expeditious manner and as the law would mandate.

¶20

In our view, considering the limited relief that the petitioner seeks in the petition and although there being no written opposition/reply of the respondents, considering the nature of the orders we propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. The following order would serve the ends of justice:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(i) We direct respondent no.6, i.e., Tahsildar, Kalyan to consider and decide the pending complaint of the petitioner dated 9 May 2023 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date this order is made available to the said respondent by the petitioner. Let all the parties be heard.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

¶25

26-WP-8347-2024.doc

¶26