Kanchan Narayan Meshram And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17000 Bom

 Judgment                               1          W.P.No.5001.2021.odt



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

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 5001 OF 2021


1)   Sau Kanchan Narayan Meshram,
     Aged about 30 years, Occu. - Household,

2)   Sameer Annaji Mahajan,
     Aged 36 years, Occu.- Agriculturist.
     Both R/o. Village Varadh,
     Tahsil Ralegaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
                                                .... PETITIONER

                            // VERSUS //

1)   State of Maharashtra,
     through its Principal Secretary,
     Rural Development Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2)   The Hon'ble State Minister,
     Revenue and Village Development
     department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

3)   Divisional Commissioner,
     Amravati Division, Amravati.

4)   Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
     Through its Chief Executive Officer,
     Yavatmal.

5)   Village Panchayat, Varadh,
     Tq. Ralegaon, Distt. Yavatmal,
     through its, Secretary.

6)   Tahsildar, Ralegaon,
     District, Yavatmal.
                                             .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
     Shri M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for petitioners.
     Shri A. S. Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 6.
______________________________________________________________
      Judgment                             2                 W.P.No.5001.2021.odt



                      CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                              ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED : 07.12.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Shri A. S. Fulzele, learned Additional Government Pleader who appears

by waiving notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6. Considering the

limited prayer before this Court made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the rest of the

respondents and we are of the view that this petition can be finally

disposed of by issuing necessary directions in the matter.

2. Hence Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the appeal filed by

the petitioners, against the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by

respondent No.3 removing the petitioner No.1 from the post of

'Sarpanch' and directing recovery of taxable amount from the

petitioner No.1 and Secretary of the village panchayat, is not being

decided by respondent No.2 and even interim relief is not being

granted, although the petitioners have a very good case on merits.

Judgment 3 W.P.No.5001.2021.odt

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order has been passed by respondent No.3 without giving

any sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further

submits that respondent No.3 has wrongly held that for allotment of

fishing rights in a minor water body like the one involved in this

petition, resolution of Gram Sabha is necessary, ignoring the specific

provisions made in the Panchayats (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act,

1996 (for short the "PESA Act"). He points out that Section 4 (j) of the

PESA Act, deals with a minor water body like the one involved in this

petition and it lays down that planning and management of minor

water bodies in the Scheduled Areas shall be entrusted to Panchayats at

the appropriate level, meaning thereby that Gram Sabha of a

panchayat has no control over the planning and management of any

minor water body which would include auctioning of the fishing rights

in such a minor water body.

5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioners, we are inclined to issue necessary directions to respondent

No.2 for expeditious disposal of the appeal, in accordance with law.

6. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed.

Judgment 4 W.P.No.5001.2021.odt

7. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the appeal of the

petitioners, filed on 29.09.2021 before him, as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the

order.

8. Meanwhile, having considered the submissions, we direct

that parties shall maintain status-quo as regards the present position of

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Gram Panchayat, Varadh, Tq. Ralegaon, till

the final decision of the appeal.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                                    (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)             (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)




                         Kirtak




Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:08.12.2021
15:11