Sau. Shalini Sanjay Pohnekar v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry Of Urban Development, Mumbai And Others

2026:BHC-NAG:7235 1 24-WP-3535-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3535 OF 2026 Sau. Shalini Sanjay Pohnekar Vs. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry Of Urban Development, Mumbai And Others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Ganesh Khanzode, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S.V. Kolhe, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr. S.S. Phadnis, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 11. CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J .

DATED : 08 th MAY, 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 11.

2.

The petitioner's limited grievance in the instant petition is against the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.1 by which an interim relief granted in the pending appeal is confirmed, although, the appeal was itself heard on merits and was closed for orders. 3.

In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the communication dated 04.03.2026 and points out that the matter was heard for final disposal. Even, the order dated 05.03.2026 reveals that the matter was heard for final hearing and it was closed for final orders, however, instead of passing final orders, the interim order dated 07.01.2025 is confirmed and the matter is not yet finally decided.

2 24-WP-3535-2026.odt 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, seeks for a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal, purported to have been filed under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagpur Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, at the earliest and preferably within a time bound schedule.

5.

Although, the respondents have opposed the petition, considering the prayer clause (3) of the petition by which the petitioner has sought for direction to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal finally, I am of the opinion, that instead of recording observation on merits of the matter, the petition can be disposed of by directing the respondent No.1 to decide the pending appeal finally. 6.

In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the appeal bearing No.,e;w,u&2025@iz-dz-1@ufo&15 expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from today.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . ) Privel