Prasad Bhalchandra Vaidya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 8618 Bom

                                                                        7912.20wp
                                      (1)

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     924 WRIT PETITION NO.7912 OF 2020

                  PRASAD BHALCHANDRA VAIDYA
                                VERSUS
              STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                    ...
            Mr Prasad Bhalchandra Vaidya, petitioner in-person;
           Mr S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1/State

                                CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                               AND
                                        S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 30th June, 2021

PER COURT:

1. We have heard the Petitioner in person and the learned A.G.P.

The petitioner has put forth the following prayers :

"(i) To hold and declare Section 406 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as unconstitutional.

(ii) To hold and declare Rule 18 of Chapter VIII of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as unconstitutional.

(iii) To quash and set aside order dated 02/11/2020 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Latur with directions to hear it on merits and dispose it within 45 days or as the time limit this Hon'ble court may decide.

7912.20wp

(iv) To direct Respondent No. 2 to publish information U/s 4 of RTI Act 2005 including Standard Rent fixed by the authorities appointed under Rent Control Act 1999."

2. The petitioner is an Advocate litigant, who had been before the

3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur as appellant No.1 in

Municipal Tax Appeal No.45/2018. The said proceedings have been

concluded by the judgment dated 02/11/2020. According to the

petitioner, the judgment is unsustainable as it does not consider the

correct law, as well as, the learned Court has not considered the

citations placed on record.

3. There can be no dispute and the petitioner agrees that the

impugned order dated 02/11/2020 has to be challenged by the

petitioner before the learned District Judge at Latur.

4. In our view, merely because the appellate Court, purportedly

has not applied the law correctly and has not referred to the citations

placed before it, as per the contention of the petitioner, would not vests

jurisdiction in this Court so as to exercise it's extraordinary writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. As such, we are not

7912.20wp

entertaining prayer clauses (iii) and (iv) in this petition and this

petition, therefore, stands dismissed to this extent.

5. The learned A.G.P. submits that as this Court would be hearing

the petitioner to the extent of prayer clauses (i) and (ii), he desires to

prepare and seeks four weeks' time to address the Court.

6. In view of the above, we are posting this matter on 17/07/2021,

which is a working Saturday. The petitioner and the learned A.G.P.

would address us on prayer clauses (i) and (ii).

      (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                   (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)



 sjk