Bombay High Court
Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare
1 931-WP.5035-22, oral jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5035 OF 2022
Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil
Foundation at Viladghat
M.I.D.C. Wadgaon Gupta, Ahmednagar
Through its Secretary General
Dr. P. M. Gaikwad,
Age :- 50 years, Occu.- Service
R/o. Viladghat, M.I.D.C. Ahmednagar,
District - Ahmednagar ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary for
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue),
Nashik Division, Nashik.
3. The Collector, Ahmednagar.
4. The Tahsildar, Nagar Taluka,
Tahsil Office, Ahmednagar,
District : Ahmednagar. ... Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V. D. Hon (Senior Counsel) i/b
Mr. Ashwin V. Hon
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. K. N. Lokhande
...
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA, AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 05.05.2022
2 931-WP.5035-22, oral jud.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R. D. DHANUKA, J.) :-
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice for
respondents-State Authority. Rule is made returnable forthwith
and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus
against respondent No.1 to decide the revision application
No.1812 of 2021 along with the stay application pending
before respondent No.1.
3. Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited
our attention to the communication issued by the Tahsildar,
Ahmednagar on 08.02.2022 threatening to take a coercive
steps against the petitioner though revision application filed by
the petitioner is pending before the State Government. He also
invited our attention to the guidelines framed by the State
Government on 17.12.2015 directing that appeal, revision or
any other such proceedings shall be disposed off within
maximum period of 30 days. He submits that the petitioner is
not at fault for not deciding the said revision application by the
State Government.
3 931-WP.5035-22, oral jud.odt
4. We accordingly direct respondent No.1 to dispose off the
said revision application within a period of eight (8) weeks
from the date of communication of this order along with
condonation application if any and stay application within
three (3) weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Till the said revision application is decided and for a period of
two weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the
said order, if the same is adverse against the petitioner.
Respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the
petitioner based on the orders which are subject matter of the
said revision application.
5. This court has not expressed any view on the merits of
the said revision application. All contentions of both the parties
are kept open. The order that would be passed shall be
communicated to the petitioner within one (1) week from the
date of passing the said order. If the order is adverse against
the petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for a period
of two (2) weeks from the date of communication of the order.
6. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
4 931-WP.5035-22, oral jud.odt
7. Respondent-State shall issue 72 hours clear notice to the
petitioner while fixing the date of hearing. The petitioner shall
not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the State
Government and the date of hearing is fixed by the State
Government.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)
...
vmk/-
