Vitthal Shivba Pawar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secy. Rural Development Dept. Mumbai and Ors.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Mr. Pritesh Atkar, Advocate for the petitioner/s Mr. Ukey, Addl. G.P. for the respondent/State

¶11

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 30.03.2026

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

2. The petitioner, who are the residents and the voters

¶14

of Gram Panchayat Chandas, Taluka Malegaon, Dist. Washim, have approached this Court seeking direction to the respondent No.2- The Additional Divisional Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati to decide their complaint, which was filed under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchyats Act, 1959. (for short "the Act of 1959").

¶15

3. The contention is that respondent No.5 is the elected Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that respondent No.5 has illegally encroached upon Government land, misused her powers, and engaged in corrupt practices in various works of the Gram Panchayat. In view thereof, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 39(1)(i) of the Act of 1959 before

nd.thawre

110

2/3

respondent No.2.

4. Upon such complaint, respondent No.2 called for the relevant record as contemplated under the aforesaid provision from respondent No.3 – Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim. Pursuant. The respondent No.3, on 26.05.2025, submitted a report to respondent No.2, which is placed on record at page 24 (Annexure-B).

¶21

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the statute mandates respondent No.2 to take a decision within one month from the date of submission of such report.

¶22

6. The report was submitted on 26.05.2025. However, even after the lapse of nearly ten months, respondent No.2 has not taken any decision on the complaint filed by the petitioners. Hence, the present petition.

¶23

7. The learned Addl. G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the aforesaid provision of Section 39(1) is governed by a proviso wherein the word “shall” is used. Accordingly, respondent No.2Additional Divisional Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati shall take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the order of this Court.

¶24

8. In view of the above, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

¶25

9. The respondent No.2 is directed to decide the application under Section 39(1)(i) of the Act of 1959

¶26

nd.thawre

¶27

110

¶28

submitted by the petitioners to the respondent No.2 which is at record Page 7(Annexure-A) within four weeks from the date of the production of this order

¶29

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to furnish copy of this order to the respondent No.2 within one week from today.

¶30

11. Decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶32

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶33

Signed by: Mr. Niranjan Thawre Designation: PA To Honourable Judge nd.thawre Date: 01/04/2 026 20:13 :19

Vitthal Shivba Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secy. Rural Development Dept. Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Shivba Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secy. Rural Development Dept. Mumbai 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Clean Coal Enterprises Private Limited, Bilaspur, Thr. Auth. Sign., Ashish Agrawal vs M/S Maharashtra State Mining Corp. Ltd., Thr. Managing Director, Nagpur and Ors.

The State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Tech. Education, Mumbai and Ors. vs Murlidhar Prabhakarrao Wadekar

Neha W/O Rajnesh Naidu (Joshi) vs Rajnesh S/O Rajendrapal Naidu

Mahesh S/O Atmaram Gambhani and Another vs Punjab National Bank, Thr. Auth. Officer, Nagpur and Another

Sangita Wd/O. Bhaurao Gadpayle vs Government of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Gajanan Govindrao Tale and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Labour, Mumbai and Ors.