SHAMBHU DHONDIRAM PAWAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS DEPT. OF REVENUE AND ORS
WP/10330/2025 · 2026-09-08
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4739 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4739 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
ssm 15-wp10330.2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10330 OF 2025 Shambhu Dhondiram Pawar …..Petitioner. Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors. …..Respondents. ____________________________________ Mr. S.R.Borulkar a/w Adv. S.S. Borulkar i/by Mr. Shubham Dhange for the Petitioner. Smt. Neha Bhide, G.P. a/w Shri. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP and Smt. R.M. Shinde AGP, for the Respondent-State. ____________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.:- 1) Smt. Bhide, learned Government Pleader submitted that, Mr. Jitendra Dudi, Collector of Pune, has filed a detailed Affidavit dated 18th March, 2026, to the Petition. That, in paragraph No.11 thereof, it is stated that, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) Khed, District Pune now again will act as per Rule 10(4) of Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 and will arrange Gramsabha himself in the present case and will take appropriate decision in the case of the Petitioner. 1.1) She on instructions further submitted that, the said Gramsabha will be convened within a period of two weeks from today and the SDO will take appropriate decision as may be permissible under the law within a 1/2
ssm 15-wp10330.2025.doc period of three weeks thereafter. 2) In view of the above, the grievance of the Petitioner as of today is redressed. 3) Petition is accordingly disposed off. 4) Paragraph No.27 of the Petition reads as under:-
“27. The Petitioner states that no action had been taken by the said authority. The Ld. District Mining Officer of Pune had not replied to the Petitioner. The Petitioner from time and again personally visited the office and requested to look into his cause. No further progress had noticed.” 5) It is observed by us that, in many Petitions for want of proper communication from the Revenue Authorities to the citizens, they have to approach this Court spending time and money on litigation only for want of proper communication or replies from the concerned Revenue Authorities. 6) Smt. Bhide, seeks time to ponder upon the said fact and to adopt necessary remedial measures in that by the concerned Authority/Authorities. 7) Stand over to 13th October, 2026. 8) To be listed under the caption “for reporting compliance”.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 2/2 SANJIV SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR Digitally signed by SANJIV SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR Date: 2026.09.18 18:56:43 +0530