← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/12933/2025disposed off

Santosh Mahadeo Gavand v. Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division And ORS

2025-10-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni , Hon'Ble Ms Justice Aarti A. Sathe3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12933 OF 2025 Santosh Mahadeo Gavand, Age 58 years, Occ.Sarpanch, R/o.Dighodi, Post.Sasawane, Tal.Alibag, Dist.Raigad.

Petitioner

Versus

1. The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai.

2. Satyavan Gajamam Koli,

3. The State of Maharashtra through Hon'ble Minister of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Maharashtra Respondents _______ Mr.Prashant P.Raul for Petitioners.

Dr.Dhruti Kapadia, AGP, for Respondents State. _______

CORAM:

G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE:

8th October 2025 P.C.

1.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following substantive reliefs, which read thus : "a) by a Writ of mandamus or writ, order or direction of similar nature, your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 in JKVISHA /KRA-3 /GRAM.PAN.-3/ GRAMPAN- SASAWANE/ E194565/2025; b) Records and proceedings be called for;

c) Pending the hearing and final disposal, your Lordships be pleased to stay the Impugned Order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 in JKVISHA/ KRA-3/ GRAM.PAN.-3/ GRAMPANSASAWANE/E-194565/2025 application filed by respondent; d) That this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondent No.3 (Ld.Minister For Rural Development At Mantralaya) to decide the appeal filed by the Petitioner as early as possible within period of 10 days;

MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2025.10.18 18:21:50 +0530

e) Costs of this Writ Petition be provided for." 2.

During the course of hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that he is not pressing the reliefs as prayed for in prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). However, he is praying for the relief in terms of prayer clause (d). 3.

The Petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent no.3 i.e. learned Minister for Rural Development, Government of Maharashtra, in not deciding the pending appeal preferred before him by the Petitioner, wherein a hearing was given on 22nd May 2025, however, no orders in respect thereto have been passed till date. It is the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent no.2 had filed a complaint against the Petitioner under Section 9 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 with the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The Divisional Commissioner accordingly forwarded the said application to the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Zilla Parishad who after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, submitted report to the Divisional Commissioner.

On receipt of the report from CEO, the Divisional Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner. After hearing the parties and considering the report submitted by the CEO, the Divisional Commissioner on 29th April 2025 allowed the application of Respondent no.2 and held the Petitioner as liable for misconduct, and accordingly removed the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is against this order dated 29th April 2025 that the Petitioner has preferred an appeal before Respondent no.3 i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Rural Development, Government of Maharashtra, which is pending adjudication.

such an appeal is not taken to its logical conclusion and not decided expeditiously in accordance with law, grave prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner. 4.

In our view, considering the limited relief that the Petitioner seeks in the petition and although there being no written opposition/reply of the Respondents, considering the nature of the orders we propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents. The following order would serve the ends of justice :

ORDER

(i) Respondent no.3 i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Rural Development, Government of Maharashtra, shall decide the pending appeal of the Petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date this order is made available to the said Respondent by the Petitioners;

(ii) Let all parties be heard;

(iii) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open; (iv) The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)