Bombay High Court
Badrinath Gavanji Solat And Anoter vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
7 WRIT PETITION NO. 10162 OF 2025
BADRINATH GAVANJI SOLAT AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr. J. J. Patel a/w Mr. R. S. Kasar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. K. S. Hoke Patil, AGP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
impugned order has been passed by the Additional Chief Secretary-cum- Officer of Special Duty without any jurisdiction. It is his submission that the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) is the Appellate Authority to entertain and decide the Appeal. This, according to him being quasi judicial function cannot be delegated to any Officer. To support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Sheikh Mohamed Fatemohamed Vs. Raisuddin Azimuddin Katil and others, 2001(1) Mh.L.J., 850.
3. In such circumstances, it is his contention that the impugned 7 WP 10162.2025.odt 1 of 3 order is without jurisdiction and hence, deserves to be stayed.
4. Learned AGP opposes to grant any stay to the impugned order on the ground that during the relevant period the code of conduct was applicable for general election as well as assembly election immediately thereafter. It is his submission that this Court by passing various orders has directed delegation of the proceedings to the Officers.
5. On the face of it, contention of learned AGP of quasi judicial powers being permitted to be delegated to the other Officers by the Authority who is expected to exercise the same, cannot be accepted. Moreover, there is nothing on record to indicate that in the present case any such order was passed by this Court permitting such exercise of powers by any delegatee Officer.
6. There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the fact the Appeal in question was entertainable by the Minister and it is a quasi judicial function. Considering the judgment of the Full Bench, the quasi judicial function cannot be delegated. Thus, prima facie case is made out by the Petitioners for stay of the impugned order. Hence, till the next date of hearing, there shall be stay to the impugned order. 7 WP 10162.2025.odt 2 of 3
7. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 1 st October, 2025.
8. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 7 WP 10162.2025.odt 3 of 3