SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK v. State of Maharashtra (1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 79), notice is required to be & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 7, 2008 Heard Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2. In the present petition, petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Tahsildar under Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 whereby Officers were appointed to hold elections of Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch of village Barshitakli. The dates of election were
23.12.2007 and 24.12.2007 respectively. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader states that in view of decision of Division Bench of this Court in 2 Sitaram Bansi Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 79), notice is required to be issued by the Collector for fixing the date of election of Sarpanch under Section 33(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and, therefore, respondent Authorities are withdrawing the notice dated 12.12.2007, which is impugned in the petition, with liberty to issue appropriate notice for fixing the date of elections as per law laid down by this Court. In view of above referred statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, cause of action in the petition does not survive. The petition is
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 — s. 33; Bombay Village Panchayats Act — s. 33(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 07 Jan 2008. The bench was D D SINHA, VASANTI A NAIK.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.