Hasinabi W/O Kasam Gawali vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15661 Bom

 Judgment                                1                       W.P.No.4228.2021.odt


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

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4228 OF 2021

          Hasinabi W/o Kasam Gawali
          Aged about 38 years,
          Occu. - Household work and
          Social Service,
          R/o. Mehkar, Tah. Mehkar,
          District - Buldhana.
                                                            .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary,
          Urban Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

 2)       Vikas Vijayrao Joshi,
          Aged about 43 years, Occu. Business,
          R/o. Ram Nagar, Mehkar,
          Tah. Mehkar, District - Buldhana.

 3)       Omprakash Pandurang Saubhage,
          Aged about 38 years,
          Occu.- Agriculturist,
          R/o. Malipeth, Mehkar,
          Tah. Mehkar, District - Buldhana.

 4)       Ahmedshah Sabadshah,
          Aged about 65 years,
          Occu.- Labour,
          R/o. Ward No.9, Rahemat Nagar,
          Mehkar, Tah. Mehkar,
          District - Buldhana.

 5)       The Chief Officer,
          Municipal Council, Mehkar,
          Tah. Mehkar, District - Buldhana.

 6)       The Collector, Buldhana,
          District - Buldhana.
                                                           .... RESPONDENTS



::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2021 08:08:14 :::
  Judgment                                2                        W.P.No.4228.2021.odt



  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate with Shri N. R. Tekade, Advocate for
      the petitioner.
      Shri A.M. Kadukar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 6.
      Shri N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
 ______________________________________________________________

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

DATED : 29.10.2021

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

1. Heard Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri

Kadukar, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 6 and Shri Kalwaghe,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 who appear by waiving

notice for the respective respondents. Considering the nature of relief

prayed for, we do not think that it is necessary to issue notice to rest of

the respondents.

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

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. There can be no two opinions about the fact that any order

of disqualification is a drastic order and it brings in for a person

affected serious civil consequences. Considering such nature of the

order, it is necessary that the Appellate authority statutorily created to

decide the appeal, decides it as expeditiously as possible and that if

Judgment 3 W.P.No.4228.2021.odt

that does not materialize for reasons beyond the control of the

authority, it at least takes up for hearing the application filed in the

appeal seeking stay, one way or the other. If this is not done, the

remedy of appeal statutorily provided would be rendered illusory.

4. Keeping in mind such object and purpose of the statutory

remedy of appeal, we think it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to

decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible. Hence, the following order :-

        (i)       The petition is partly allowed.


        (ii)      We direct respondent No.1 to decide the appeal of the

petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

possible.

(iii) We further direct to respondent No.1 to take a decision on

the stay application filed by the petitioner, in accordance

with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of

appearance of the parties physically or virtually before the

respondent No.1.

(iv) Parties may appear physically or virtually before

respondent No.1 on 07.11.2021.

  Judgment                                  4                       W.P.No.4228.2021.odt


        (v)       We make it clear here that so far as period of four weeks

granted under this order for deciding the stay application is

concerned, there shall be no further extension granted by

this Court.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

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




 Kirtak