AKOLKAR SUVARNA MOHANRAO v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZP AHMEDNAGAR
WP/3586/2017 · 2025-12-08
Shri N B Suryawanshi, Vaishali Patil Jadhav
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 66787 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 66787 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 57-WP-3266-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2017 SURESH VITTHAL NAWALE VERSUS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, AHMEDNAGAR ... Mr. P. B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State Ms. Vijaya Bharkad, Advocate h/f Ms. Manjushri Shendage Narwade, Advocate for Respondent ... AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3569 OF 2017 SMT. KHANKAR KAMAL RAGHUNATH VERSUS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, AHMEDNAGAR ... Mr. P. B. Shirsath and Mr. Avinash S. Khedkar, Advocates for the Petitioner Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. Shivaji T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.1 ... AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3588 OF 2017 BHASKAR BABAJI DATE VERSUS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, AHMEDNAGAR ... Mr. P. B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. Avinash D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No.1 ... AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3577 OF 2017 LONDHE BHIMAJI TUKARAM VERSUS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, AHMEDNAGAR ... Mr. P. B. Shirsath and Mr. D. R. Markad, Advocates for the Petitioner Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.1 … AND SVH 2025:BHC-AUG:35190-DB
2 57-WP-3266-17.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 3369 OF 2017 RAMDAS BHAGWAN SHINDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State Ms. Savita G. Mapari, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ... AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3265 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3595 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3597 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3576 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3575 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3574 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3585 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3589 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3573 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3590 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3591 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3596 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3568 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3582 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3579 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3371 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3567 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3570 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3593 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3580 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO.
3583 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3594 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3584 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3578 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3572 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3586 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3581 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3571 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3592 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3226 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3382 OF 2017
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 08th DECEMBER, 2025 SVH
3 57-WP-3266-17.odt PER COURT :
1. In all these petitions, petitioners are challenging the respective final show-cause notices issued to them by the Chief Executive OfÏcer, Zilla Parishad. In March, 2017 this Court issued notices to the respondents and protected services of the petitioners observing that, ‘till the next date adverse action may not be taken against petitioners pursuant to the impugned notices’. Almost nine years period is lapsed since the date of above order. 2. It is well settled that challenge to the show-cause notice is premature and it should not be entertained in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. We, therefore, dispose of these writ petitions by directing respective Chief Executive OfÏcers to take decision in the cases of the petitioners, if not already decided, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by considering Government Resolutions / Circulars / Instructions, if any, applicable to the cases of the petitioners’, so also, the orders passed in respect of similarly situated employees. 3. Till the final decision of the petitioners’ cases, no adverse action shall be taken against them. (VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH