Dnyaneshwar Jotiram Gove and Anr. vs Mangalvedha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Dnyaneshwar Jotiram Gove and Anr. vs Mangalvedha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to Respondent No.2 to dispose of the Petitioners' appeal under Section 47 of the MRTP Act, 1966 challenging the order dated 21st January 2025 passed by Mangalwedha Municipal Council, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st October 2026; merits not considered, all contentions kept open; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.2 should be directed to decide, within a time-bound programme, the appeal dated 20.02.2025 filed by the Petitioners under Section 47 of the MRTP Act, 1966 challenging the order dated 21st January 2025 passed by Mangalwedha Municipal Council.

Court's answer

Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioners under Section 47 of the MRTP Act, 1966 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21st January 2025 passed by Mangalwedha Municipal Council, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st October 2026.

Key takeaways

This Court has not considered the merits of the matter and all contentions are expressly kept open.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India disposed of by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.) on March 4, 2026. The Petitioners had filed an appeal dated 20.02.2025 (filed 17th February 2025) under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 before the Minister, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra (Respondent No.2), challenging the order dated 21st January 2025 passed by Mangalwedha Municipal Council; the appeal had not been taken up for hearing. The Court directed Respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st October 2026, expressly clarifying that the merits were not considered and all contentions were kept open. Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

19 wp-844-2026(c).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 844 OF 2026

Dnyandeshwar Jotiram Gove and Others. ...Petitioners. Versus Mangalvedha Municipal Council and Others. ...Respondents.

Ms. Indrayani Patil and Mr. Kedar Lad for the Petitioners. Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State (Respondent No. 2).

——————

Coram : Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ. Date : March 4, 2026.

P. C. :

1. Heard Ms. Indrayani Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Vikas Mali, learned AGP for the Respondent-State.

2. In this petition, iled under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, a very limited relief has been sought. The prayer clause (a) reads thus :

“(a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal dated 20.02.2025 iled by the Petitioners before Respondent No.2 within time bound programme in the interest of justice.”

3. It is the submission of Ms. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that although on 17^th February 2025, an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

1 of 2

Patil-SR

19 wp-844-2026(c).doc

[for short, “MRTP Act” ] has been iled before the Minister, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra challenging the order dated 21^st January 2025 passed by Mangalwedha Municipal Council, till date the said appeal has not been taken up for hearing.

4. Learned AGP states that within a reasonable time, said appeal will be disposed of.

5. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose the appeal iled by Petitioners under Section 47 of the MRTP Act, 1966 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21^st January 2025 passed by Mangalwedha Municipal Council, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31^st October 2026.

6. It is clariied that this Court has not considered merits of the matter and all contentions are expressly kept open.

7. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to

costs.

[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]

2 of 2

Patil-SR