Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29918 (BOM)

GRAMPANCHAYAT JAB BK THROUGH ITS MEMBER LAXMI VINOD AADE AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

WP/11346/2024 · 2025-02-04

Shri S G Mehare, Shri Shailesh P Brahme

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 wp 11346.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11346 OF 2024 Gram Panchayat Jab Bk through its Member Laxmi Vinod Aade and another .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Majit S. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri S. R. Yadav Lonikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1, 1A and 2. CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 04TH FEBRUARY, 2025. ORDER : . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Issue notice to the respondents. The learned A. G. P. waives notice for respondent Nos. 1, 1A and 2. 2. The petitioners seek direction against the respondent Nos. 1 and 1A to consider representation and take appropriate decision. 3. In identically situated writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 866 of 2024, this Court by order dated 24th September, 2024 directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 1A to consider grievance of the petitioner gram panchayat. The petitioners are praying for 2025:BHC-AUG:3390-DB 2 wp 11346.24 for identical order. 4. Hence we pass following order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 1A to consider the representation of the petitioners/gram panchayats within two (02) months from today. If the respondent Nos. 1 and 1A come to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for release of funds, appropriate orders may be passed. 6. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed our opinion on the contentions of the parties and have not arrived at any conclusion on merits of the claim of the petitioners. [SHAILESH P. BRAHME J.] [S. G. MEHARE, J.] bsb/Feb. 25