Advocates:
['PATIL PARESH B', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'G P', 'R/ SERVED', 'DESHMUKH ANIKET V']

1 wp 997.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 997 OF 2013

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and another

.. Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2013

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and another

.. Respondent

Shri Paresh B. Patil Advocate for the Petitioner in both petitions.

Shri V. B. Ghatage, A.G.P. for Respondent/State in both petitions.

Shri A. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in both

petitions.

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2013.

PER COURT :

.

The grievance made by the petitioner in both these

petitions is that in spite of filing of caveat the Additional

2 wp 997.13

Commissioner has granted stay without hearing the petitioner.

2.

Shri P. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that, after the order was passed by the Additional

Collector, the petitioner immediately filed a caveat with the

Additional Commissioner. That caveat was filed and was a part

of the record. No notice was issued to the petitioner, nor the

advocate of the petitioner was served with the copies and straight

way the Additional Commissioner stayed the order of the

Additional Collector till the disposal of the appeal. According to

the learned counsel at the first instance the Additional

Commissioner could not have passed the orders of stay without

hearing the petitioner and secondly could not have passed the

orders of stay till the disposal of the appeal and more

particularly, when it was an ex-parte one. The learned counsel

submits that the said order of stay deserve to be vacated.

3.

The learned A. G. P. supports the order.

4.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that

the exigency and the circumstances demanded passing of interim

order. The present respondent No. 2 was disqualified as member

3 wp 997.13

of the Gram Panchayat and as such it was necessary to seek stay

and to pass the emergent orders. In that light, the impugned

orders are passed.

5.

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through

the orders.

6.

Whenever the caveat is filed by the parties, it is expedient

to pass the orders after hearing the parties. The exception is

only in case of emergency, wherein the situation demands

passing of ex-parte order. In the present cases, no doubt the

respondents were disqualified to be the members of Gram

Panchayat for non submission of validity certificates within the

stipulated period. However, the orders of stay could not have

been passed ex-parte till the disposal of appeal. The orders of

stay can be made absolute or the same can be vacated after

hearing other side.

7.

In the light of the above, the interim orders of stay passed

by the Additional Commissioner shall be treated as an ad-

interim orders. The same shall not be treated till the disposal of

the appeal, but only till the disposal of stay petitions.

4 wp 997.13

8.

In view of the above, I pass the following order.

9.

The orders of stay granted by the Additional Commissioner

in favour of present respondent Nos. 2 shall be treated as an ad-

interim orders and shall be till the disposal of the stay petition.

The Additional Commissioner shall hear all the parties and

thereafter decide the said stay petition. The stay petitions shall

be decided expeditiously. The parties shall appear before the

Additional Commissioner on 06

th March, 2013.

10.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with

aforesaid observations and directions.

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

bsb/Feb. 13