1 45-wp 2336-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2336 OF 2025 Farhat Anjum Shaikh Zubaid Raja .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. Nitin K. Chuadhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2025. P. C. :- . Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate who appears suo motu for respondent Nos. 5 and 6/original complainants. 2. This petition is filed for setting aside the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Collector. Going through the impugned order it is seen that, it is only an order passed which appears in roznama which reads as under : “mHk; i{kdkj gtj- mHk; i{kdkjkauh rksaMh ;qDrhokn nk[ky dsyk- izdj.kkr iqjslk osG fnyk vkgs- izdj.kkr vafre ;qDrhoknkdfjrk 'ksoVph la/kh-” 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:4781 2 45-wp 2336-2025.odt 3. In the roznama what appears only is that, both the parties have argued the matter. Both the parties are given sufficient time. By way of last chance the proceeding is adjourned to 18.02.2025 for final argument. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner had filed an application on the same day requesting the Collector to direct the Block Development Officer to issue fresh notice to all the parties and to hear them and thereafter to prepare a fresh report. 4. It is submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that, though the Block Development Officer has prepared a report, the said report is prepared without giving any notice to the petitioner whose disqualification is sought by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 before the Collector. He submits that, there is violation of principles of natural justice as the report is prepared behind her back. 5. This Court hardly finds any substance in the submissions at this stage. The proceeding is still pending before the Collector. It is for the Collector to consider all the aspects. When the proceeding is pending, there is no reason for this Court to interfere at this stage and to direct the Collector or the authorities to do any exercise. Needless to say that, it is open for the petitioner to raise all his grievance about the report before the Collector. The Collector is expected to consider all the grievance. 2 of 3 3 45-wp 2336-2025.odt 6. This Court thus, does not find any reason to interfere in the petition. In view of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 3 of 3