Kakasaheb Bhaskar Gambhire v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2023:BHC-AUG:25889-DB (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.14920 OF 2023 KAKASAHEB BHASKAR GAMBHIRE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ....

Mr Ashish Satish Hazari, Advocate for Petitioner; Mrs Priya R. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondents/State CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 7th December, 2023 PER COURT:

1.

By this Petition, the Petitioner desires that his representations dated 04/08/2023 and 21/08/2023 be decided within a period of four weeks by the Respondent/District Collector.

2.

We have repeatedly come across matters, which are filed under the pretext that the Petitioner only wants directions to get the representation decided. We have been passing such orders. Now, we are repeatedly noticing that, many representations contain such contentions and issues, which are at times beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority, to whom we issue

(2) a Writ of Mandamus to decide and at times, they have dangerous ramifications and consequences.

3.

Hence, we went through the representations tendered by the present Petitioner and we find that the Petitioner desires that the Sub Divisional Officer, namely, Smt. Manisha Mene and the Mandal Adhikari and the Talathi should be subjected to registration of criminal offences. After we delved deep into this aspect, we found that the concerned Sub Divisional Officer has delivered an order against the Petitioner, dated 22/06/2023, in her capacity of being the Revisional Authority under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Petitioner has already challenged the said verdict by preferring an Appeal before the learned Additional Collector. Since July, the said Appeal is pending. No interim orders in favour of the Petitioner, have been passed.

In Regular Civil Suit No.797/2021, the Petitioner/Plaintiff had already suffered an order of the Civil Court, by which, his prayer of injuncting defendant Nos.1 to 4 from using a particular road, has been rejected. 4.

Having patiently heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, who has tried to go into the merits of the order passed

(3) by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kalamb, as well as pending litigation, we find that this Petition has not only wasted the time of the Court, but is an attempt to use the process of law to exert pressure on the Authorities, who have passed the orders in quasi-judicial proceedings. This is apparently an abuse of the process of law.

5.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed, by imposing costs of Rs.15,000/- which the Petitioner shall deposit in this Court within 30 days from today. Out of the said amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be donated by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to the 'Creche' operated in the premises of this High Court and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be donated to the Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. If this amount is not deposited, we direct the District Collector, to initiate action against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, treating the said amount as arrears of land revenue.

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk