Murlidhar S/O Kailash Lakhade vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14868 Bom

                                                           7wp3984.2021(JUD).odt
                                               1/2



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

                          WRIT PETITION NO.3984 OF 2021

  Murlidhar s/o Kailash Lakhade,
  Aged about 29 years, Occupation:
  Service/Driver, R/o Rokadiya Nagar,
  Shegaon, District Buldhana.                                  .... PETITIONER

                  // VERSUS //

  1) State of Maharashtra,
  Through Director of Municipal
  Administration, Sir Pochkhanwala
  Marge, Building of Government Transport
  Services, 3rd floor, Worli, Mumbai:30

  2) Municipal Council, Shegaon,
  Through its Chief Officer, Dist. Buldhana.

  3) Regional Director of Municipal
  Administration as well as Divisional
  Commissioner, Revenue,
  Amravati Division, Amravati.                                .... RESPONDENTS

  Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for petitioner.
  Shri A.M. Kadukar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3 /State
  ________________________________________________________________

                                 CORAM         : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                 ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 11th OCTOBER, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP,

who appears by waiving notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. There

7wp3984.2021(JUD).odt

is no need to issue notice to respondent No.3, as no relief has been

sought against respondent No.3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard

finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is seen from the petition that the proposal dated

12.10.2018, seeking approval of respondent No.1 for absorption of

three employees of the erstwhile village panchyat Rokadiya Nagar,

has been sought and it is also seen that even the queries raised by

respondent No.1 have been answered by respondent No.2 by its

letter dated 26.02.2021 and yet, no decision has been taken by

respondent no.1 on the proposal dated 12.10.2018. Since, the

matter is pending for quite long time, it would be appropriate for

respondent no.1 to take decision at the earliest.

4. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed.

5. Respondent no.1 is directed to decide the proposal dated

12.10.2018, in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case

within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.

6. Rule accordingly. No costs.

                           JUDGE                                JUDGE
nd.thawre