Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DAILYLAW 3157 (BOM)

NAMDEO GANPAT MULE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

WP/2455/2017 · 2026-08-18

Public Interest Litigationbody2017

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

6-WP-2455-2017 (C).doc IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2455 OF 2017 Namdeo Ganpat Mule ] Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ] Respondents ….. Mr. Rushieksh Thakur i/b Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Abhijeet Naik, A.G.P, for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Dinesh Sonarikar, for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 18 AUGUST 2026. P. C. : 1. None appears for the Petitioner when the matter was called out. 2. In the present Writ Petition, which has been filed in the year 2017, the notice dated 21 August, 2013 issued by Gaon Kamgar Talathi has been challenged. By the impugned notice, which is annexed at page 48 of the Writ Petition, the Gaon Kamgar Talathi has directed the Petitioner, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No.107 of 2001, to pay an amount of Rs.2,85,450/- on account of the illegal construction put up by the Petitioner. Shailaja 1 SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2026.08.18 17:42:18 +0530 6-WP-2455-2017 (C).doc 3. We have been informed that the Petitioner has not paid an amount of Rs.2,85,450/-, and that the illegal structure has already been demolished. 4. At this stage, Mr. Thakur has appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and is seeking an adjournment. 5. In view of the above, we find no substance in the present Petition. The structure in question has already been demolished, as stated by the learned A.G.P. The learned A.G.P. has also brought to our notice the order dated 13 March, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No.107 of 2001, which forms part of Exhibit A to the Petition. By the said order, Respondent Nos.5 to 7 therein were directed to proceed with the impugned notices expeditiously and to dispose of the same. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.] [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] Shailaja 2