Smt. Nalini Anil Meshram vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4297 Bom

                  wp5742.15.odt                                                                                       1/3

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                                                                                 
                                                   WRIT PETITION NO.5742 OF 2015




                                                                                 
                      PETITIONER:                             Smt.   Nalini   Anil   Meshram,   Aged
                                                              about                       43                     years,
                           
                                                              Occupation:Household, R/o Mandhal,
                                                              Tah. Kuhi, District - Nagpur.
                                                                                                                   




                                                                                
                                                                    -VERSUS-

                   RESPONDENTS:                               1. The State of Maharashtra through its
                                                                 Secretary,   Rural   Development




                                                                   
                                                                 Department,   Mantralaya,   Mumbai   -
                                                                 32.
                                    ig                        2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
                                                                 Division, Nagpur.
                                                              3. Chief   Executive   Officer,   Zilla
                                                                 Parishad, Nagpur.
                                  
                                                        4. Shri   Ashish   Prakash   Awale,   Aged   :
                                                              Major,   member,   Gram   panchayat
                                                              Mandhal, Tah. Kuhi, District Nagpur,
                                                              R/o   Mandhal,   Tah.   Kuhi,   District
      

                                                              Nagpur.
                                                                                                                                    
   



                  Shri A. R. Ingole, Advocate for the petitioner.
                  Mrs. Tajwar Khan, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and
                  2.





                                                                             CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED: 29 th JULY, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned

Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

wp5742.15.odt 2/3

8-9-2015 whereby the Hon'ble Minister while entertaining the

appeal challenging the order of disqualification that was preferred

by the respondent no.4 has granted stay to the said

disqualification.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent

nos.1 & 2, I do not find it necessary to enter into the merits of the

order dated 8-9-2015. Instead, the interests of justice would be

served by directing the respondent no.1 to decide the aforesaid

appeal expeditiously and within a period of eight weeks from

today. The impugned order granting stay can be permitted to

operate till the decision of the appeal.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of by

directing the respondent no.1 to decide the appeal preferred by the

respondent no.4 within a period of eight weeks from today. The

appeal shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced

by continuation of the order of stay. Appropriate notice should be

issued to the respondent no.4 for being heard in the appeal.

5. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.

                                                                                                             JUDGE 

                  //MULEY//





                   wp5742.15.odt                                                                          3/3




                                                                                                    
                                                                 CERTIFICATE




                                                                            

"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and

correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."

Uploaded by : Sanjay B. Muley, Uploaded on : 02-08-2016 Personal Assistant.