GRAM PANCHAYAT KUMBHARASHI & Anr. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. We find that the impugned order merely reproduces the arguments of learned counsel for the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent has not assigned any reasons as to why he has accepted the arguments of learned counsel for the 5th respondent. It was necessary for…
- Para 66. Petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)
Judgment
Mr. Vikas Kolekar for the petitioners Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP Mrs. Veena Thadani for R-3 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 2/9/2009 P.C. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner i.e. Gram Panchayat Kumbharashi and one other have challenged the order dated 26/4/08 passed by the 2nd respondent i.e. the Minister of State Excise, State of Maharashtra.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.
We find that the impugned order merely reproduces the arguments of learned counsel for the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent has not assigned any reasons as to why he has accepted the arguments of learned counsel for the 5th respondent. It was necessary for the 2nd respondent to give reasons as reasons indicate application of mind. Reasons also help to find out whether there is transparency. We have also noticed that no representative of Gram Panchayat Kumbharashi was heard. It was necessary to hear representative of Gram Panchayat Kumbharashi because the issue involved concerns the residents particularly women of village Kumbharashi.
In the circumstances of the case without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order dated 26/4/08. We direct the Minister of State Excise, State of Maharashtra to give a hearing to the representative of the petitioners and to the 5th respondent and pass a fresh order giving reasons.
We again make it clear that we have not considered the merits of the case. The Minister of State Excise, State of Maharashtra is free to pass such order as he deems fit, independently and in accordance with law. The entire exercise may be conducted by the Minister within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by him. The parties may go to the office of the Minister and get a date fixed for hearing. We expect the parties not to seek unnecessary adjournments and ensure that the matter is decided within the time frame laid down by us.
Operative part
Petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Sep 2009. The bench was RANJANA DESAI, A A SAYED.
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.