Mahanteshwar Hanmantao Kattimani v. State Of Maha. Thr. Rural Development Dept. And ORS

VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date:

2025.04.16 10:56:22 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13300 OF 2022 Mahanteshwar Hanmantrao Kattimani

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

__________ Mr. Rajesh Ranglani i/b. Priayal Sarda, Advocates for the Petitioner. __________ CORAM :

G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

DATE :

7 APRIL, 2025 P.C.:

1.

This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following substantive reliefs:

"(a) Rule may be issued and recording proceedings may be called for;

(b) By way of issuing appropriate writ/directions to the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 may be directed to take immediate action and list the Revision Application (Exh.-C) for hearing and hearing may be given to the Petition". 2.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an alleged false FIR dated 26th February, 2016 filed against him by one of his colleagues with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur for offences under section 376, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). The Petitioner moved this Court for quashing of the FIR, which as stated in the Petition was quashed by an order dated 2nd

December, 2016. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner, headed by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Solapur, who upheld the allegation leveled against the Petitioner. Aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner filed an appeal on 14th October, 2019 before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune against the above order of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad, Solapur. In the said appeal, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune by an order 28th December, 2020 rejected such appeal of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by such rejection, the Petitioner filed a Revision Application dated 4th March, 2021 before the Hon'ble Minister of State of Maharashtra for Rural Development. However, the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Minister is pending since then.

3.

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that this petition is filed. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Ranglani, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Though the Respondent has not entered appearance, considering the nature of the orders, we intend to pass, in our view, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent.

4.

We may observe that in the given facts and circumstances, the Revision Application dated 4th March, 2021 filed by the Petitioner is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Minister of the State of Maharashtra, Rural Development. As such application is pending for more than about four years, the same ought to be decided expeditiously.

5.

In light of the above, in our view, the following order would meet the ends of justice.

ORDER

(i) The Respondents through the Minister of State of Maharashtra for Rural Development shall after hearing the Petitioner decide the Revision Application dated 4.3.2021 and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be undertaken as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date this order is presented by the Petitioner before the Respondents/ Hon'ble Minister.

(ii) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. (iii) The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. (iv) No order as to costs.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]