Sanjay Prabhakar Karnik v. The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Dy Sec. Urban Devleopment Dept And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2731 OF 2026 Sanjay Prabhakar Karnik ....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

....Respondents ---- Mr. Joel Carlos, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, Addl. GP. a/w. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State.

---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 24th MARCH, 2026 P.C. :- 1.

The concerned Officer, Mr. Anirudha V. Jewalikar, Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, is present in the Court Hall in pursuance of the order dated 27th February, 2026. 2.

The learned AGP submits, on instructions from the concerned officer, that notice was not issued to the Original Complainant before the District Collector, which is an error on the part of the Department. There was no intention to ignore the

Original Complainant. The concerned officer, who is arrayed as Respondent No. 5, submits that henceforth the applicable procedure shall be followed and, if the State has jurisdiction to deal with any matter, notices shall be issued to all the stakeholders to afford an opportunity of hearing in adherence to the principles of natural justice.

3.

Having said that, it is conveyed to us that there was no intention to violate the principles of natural justice and that, henceforth, the same shall be followed.

4.

We record that Respondent No. 5 had issued a letter directly to the District Collector without noticing that a notice of hearing ought to have been initially issued to Respondent No. 4. We also record that we are not going into the issue as to whether Respondent No. 5 had the jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of Respondent No. 4 directly, in this case, since we intend to give a quietus to this matter, keeping in view that the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits, on instructions, that the proceedings before the District Collector are now being conducted as per the procedure under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

5.

Needless to state that the issue as to whether Respondent No. 5 Authority had the jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding directly filed, is left open and shall be considered in an appropriate proceeding.

6.

With the consent of the Petitioner, this Petition is therefore disposed off.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)