Sunil Daulat Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 December, 2013
(3) Shubhangi Anil Gawande and another Vs.
Additional Collector and others reported
in 2010(6)Bom.C.R. 343.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)Kusum Chandrakant Kachare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 19 November, 2018
13. Unlike the facts in the case of Shubhangi (supra), in the
instant case, the District Collector has delivered a 13 pages order
dealing with both the issues as regards the failure to conduct the
monthly meeting in February 2017 and rendering the Gram Sabha
meeting dated 01/05/2017 practically as 'adjourned sine-die', I,
therefore, do not find that the impugned order could be termed as
being perverse or erroneous.
Sau. Archana Asthpal Chakranarayan vs The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 14 November, 2022
4. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner however,
by placing reliance upon Shubhangi Anil Gawande and Ors.
Vs. Additional Collector and Ors., MANU/MH/1617/2010
and Radhabai Vs. The Collector, Nanded and Ors., MANU/
MH/1102/2022, submits that since the order under Section
36 of the M.V.P. Act, is final, it would be susceptible to a
challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He
further invites my attention to the language of Section 155
of the M.V.P. Act and submits, that the powers of revision, as
vested therein in the State Government are for the purpose
of examining the record and proceedings of the Zilla
Parishad, Panchayat Samiti or Standing Committee or of
any Officer for the purpose of satisfying as to the legality or
propriety of any order passed, and therefore, the impugned
order, cannot fall within the four corners of the language of
Section 155 of the M.V.P, Act. He further submits, that
Section 155 of the M.V.P. Act, falls under Chapter 11 of the
M.V.P. Act, which relates to over all control of the State
Government over the actions of various Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samities, and therefore, would not be available
in the present case against the order under Section 36 of the
M.V.P Act.
Suvarna Vishal Desale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 April, 2026
6. Shubhangi Anil Gawande and Another Vs. Additional
Collector, Amravati and Others reported in 2010 (2)
Mh.L.J. 368.
Ulkesh Uttamrao Desale And Another vs Suvarna Vishal Desale And Others on 20 April, 2026
6. Shubhangi Anil Gawande and Another Vs. Additional
Collector, Amravati and Others reported in 2010 (2)
Mh.L.J. 368.
Sau. Archana Asthpal Chakranarayan vs The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 22 August, 2022
4. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner
however, by placing reliance upon Shubhangi Anil
Gawande and Ors. Vs. Additional Collector and Ors.,
MANU/MH/1617/2010 and Radhabai Vs. The Collector,
Nanded and Ors., MANU/MH/1102/2022, submits that
since the order under Section 36 of the M.V.P. Act, is
final, it would be susceptible to a challenge under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. He further invites my
attention to the language of Section 155 of the M.V.P.
Act and submits, that the powers of revision, as vested
therein in the State Government are for the purpose of
examining the record and proceedings of the Zilla
Parishad, Panchayat Samiti or Standing Committee or of
any Officer for the purpose of satisfying as to the legality
or propriety of any order passed, and therefore, the
impugned order, cannot fall within the four corners of
the language of Section 155 of the M.V.P, Act. He further
submits, that Section 155 of the M.V.P. Act, falls under
4 77.WP.3287-2022.odt
Chapter 11 of the M.V.P. Act, which relates to over all
control of the State Government over the actions of
various Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities, and
therefore, would not be available in the present case
against the order under Section 36 of the M.V.P Act.
1