Rahul Khemlal Bisen v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The Honble Minister Of Rural Devpt. Dept., Mumbai And ORS.
1 wp 4062.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4062/2025 Rahul V State of Maharashtra and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------- Mr. V.G. Dhage, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Narale, AGP for resp. nos.1, 2 and 4.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , J.
DATE : 18-12-2025.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for the respondents.
2.
Petitioner's challenge is to an interim order dated 27-06-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Minister in proceedings under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short, 'the said Act'). The petitioner's primary contention is that the impugned order was passed in the proceedings in which the copy of memorandum of appeal was not served upon the petitioner who was arrayed as respondent no.4 in the said appeal. In response to the petition, respondent no.1 has filed affidavit in reply dated 07-11-2025 and has placed on record copy of the memorandum of appeal which was filed before the Hon'ble Minister. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that the Memorandum of appeal is now served upon the petitioner and the petitioner has already put his appearance before the Hon' ble Minister.
2 wp 4062.25.odt 3.
In view of the fact that now the appeal under Section 39(3) of the Act is pending before respondent no.1/the Hon' ble Minister of Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, it will be appropriate to direct the proceedings of Appeal be decided by the respondent no.1 within the time as provided by law. Hence, the instant petition raising challenge to the interim order need not be entertained and it is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to decide the appeal within a period of one month from the date of first appearance of the petitioner before respondent no.1. 4.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Prafulla S. Khubalkar , J.
) Deshmukh