Tejrao Sandu Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

3-cp_830_2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.830 OF 2019 IN WP/4558/2019 TEJRAO SANDU JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ---- Mr.V.G.Deshmukh, Advocate h/f. Mr.V.U.Pawar, Advocate for petitioners Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.V.M.Vibhute, Advocate for respondent no.2 ---- CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2020 PER COURT :- Mr.Vibhute, learned Counsel, submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent no.5 - Udaysingh Rajput, Block Development Officer and respondent no.6 - Sunil Gawai, Village Panchayat Perjapur. He submits that he has already filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.5 and today, he would file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.6.

3-cp_830_2019 2.

Mr.Vibhute, learned Counsel, also tenders a copy of the proceedings book of the meeting. The same is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. Perusal of the proceedings shows that the meeting was conducted on 20.01.2020 under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch - Sow.Sakhubai in the office of the Grampanchayat. The representations of the petitioners seeking regularisation of their respective encroachments, was considered in the meeting. It further shows that the Grampanchayat unanimously turned down the proposal for regularisation of the encroachments.

3.

In view of these facts, it can safely be said that though there is delay in the decision i.e. the decision is taken after expiry of the stipulated period, the Grampanchayat has arrived at a unanimous decision and thereby, rejected the representations for regularisation of the encroachments. As such, the order of this Court has been complied with and now, nothing survives in the present petition.

3-cp_830_2019 4.

The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.] kbp