Dnyaneshwar Jotiram Gove And ANR v. Mangalvedha Municipal Council Thr. Its Chief Officer And ANR

19 wp-844-2026(c).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 844 OF 2026 Dnyandeshwar Jotiram Gove and Others.

...Petitioners.

Versus

Mangalvedha Municipal Council and Others.

...Respondents.

------ Ms. Indrayani Patil and Mr. Kedar Lad for the Petitioners. Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State (Respondent No. 2). ------ Coram : Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.

Date : March 4, 2026.

P. C. :

1.

Heard Ms. Indrayani Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Vikas Mali, learned AGP for the Respondent-State. 2.

In this petition, iled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a very limited relief has been sought. The prayer clause (a) reads thus :

"(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal dated 20.02.2025 iled by the Petitioners before Respondent No.2 within time bound programme in the interest of justice."

3.

It is the submission of Ms. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that although on 17th February 2025, an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Patil-SR 1 of

19 wp-844-2026(c).doc [for short, "MRTP Act"] has been iled before the Minister, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra challenging the order dated 21st January 2025 passed by Mangalwedha Municipal Council, till date the said appeal has not been taken up for hearing. 4.

Learned AGP states that within a reasonable time, said appeal will be disposed of.

5.

Accordingly, Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose the appeal iled by Petitioners under Section 47 of the MRTP Act, 1966 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21st January 2025 passed by Mangalwedha Municipal Council, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st October 2026. 6.

It is clariied that this Court has not considered merits of the matter and all contentions are expressly kept open. 7.

Writ petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Patil-SR 2 of