Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 880 (BOM)

ANWAR SADIQ SHEIKH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

WP/927/2026 · 2026-03-04

Shri Abhay J Mantri, Shri Ravindra V Ghuge

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

57.WP-927-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.927 OF 2026 Anwar Sadiq Sheikh ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents ---- Mr. Rahul Kadam a/w. Mr. Sohel Mujawar for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Mrs. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Ashwin R. Kapadnis for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 4th MARCH, 2026 P.C. :- 1. The learned Advocate Mr. Kapadnis is on the Panel of the Pune Zilla Parishad. Since this case pertains to proceedings pending before the CEO, Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune, we requested his assistance. At the request of the Court, he has caused his appearance in this matter. 2. We find from the interim order dated 30th December, 2024 passed by the CEO, Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune, that the proceeding with regard to following a particular procedure as Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 2 GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2026.03.06 11:13:45 +0530 57.WP-927-2026.odt prescribed under the statute for allotment of Gram Panchayat constructed shops (galas), is underway. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, after the order dated 30th December, 2024, the matter has not progressed. 3. In view of the above, we would expect Respondent No.2 to follow the due procedure laid down in law and complete the said procedure by maintaining transparency, within a period of 45 days from today. 4. In the event any person is aggrieved by the decision of the CEO, he would be at liberty to avail of a statutory remedy as may be permissible in law. 5. With the above directions, this Petition is disposed off. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 2