Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHAMBHU DHONDIRAM PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS DEPT. OF REVENUE AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the petitioner's grievance is deemed redressed pending the Gramsabha proceedings and therefore disposed of the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Shambhu Dhondiram Pawar, complained that the District Mining Officer of Pune had not responded to his grievance regarding a minor mineral extraction matter. The Collector of Pune filed an affidavit stating that the Sub‑Divisional Officer would convene a Gramsabha within two weeks and decide the case within three weeks, as per Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. The court observed that many citizens face similar delays due to lack of communication from revenue authorities and noted the petitioner's repeated personal visits without result. The Government Pleader sought time to implement remedial measures, and the court ordered a stand‑over until 13 October 2026 for reporting compliance. Consequently, the court held the petitioner's grievance as redressed and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

  • What relief, if any, is appropriate for the petitioner given the alleged inaction by the District Mining Officer?
  • Whether ordering the convening of a Gramsabha and a subsequent decision within a specified time suffices to redress the petitioner's grievance.

Subjects

  • Minor Mineral Extraction
  • Gramsabha
  • Revenue Authority
  • Administrative Delay
  • Petition Disposal
  • Rule 10(4) Maharashtra Rules 2013

Judgment

     ssm                                                15-wp10330.2025.doc

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 10330 OF 2025

Shambhu Dhondiram Pawar                           …..Petitioner.
           Vs.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors.                       …..Respondents.
                ____________________________________

Mr. S.R.Borulkar a/w Adv. S.S. Borulkar i/by Mr. Shubham Dhange
for the Petitioner.
Smt. Neha Bhide, G.P. a/w Shri. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP and Smt. R.M.
Shinde AGP, for the Respondent-State.
                    ____________________________________

                               CORAM :      A. S. GADKARI AND
                                            KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                  DATE :    8th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:-

1)           Smt. Bhide, learned Government Pleader submitted that, Mr.

Jitendra Dudi, Collector of Pune, has filed a detailed Affidavit dated 18 th

March, 2026, to the Petition. That, in paragraph No.11 thereof, it is stated

that, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) Khed, District Pune now again will

act as per Rule 10(4) of Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction

(Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 and will arrange Gramsabha

himself in the present case and will take appropriate decision in the case of

the Petitioner.

1.1)         She on instructions further submitted that, the said Gramsabha

will be convened within a period of two weeks from today and the SDO will

take appropriate decision as may be permissible under the law within a

                                                                              1/2
              ssm                                                              15-wp10330.2025.doc

        period of three weeks thereafter.

        2)                      In view of the above, the grievance of the Petitioner as of today

        is redressed.

        3)                      Petition is accordingly disposed off.

        4)                      Paragraph No.27 of the Petition reads as under:-

                                “27.          The Petitioner states that no action had
                                been taken by the said authority. The Ld. District
                                Mining Officer of Pune had not replied to the
                                Petitioner.   The Petitioner from time and again
                                personally visited the office and requested to look
                                into his cause. No further progress had noticed.”

        5)                      It is observed by us that, in many Petitions for want of proper

        communication from the Revenue Authorities to the citizens, they have to

        approach this Court spending time and money on litigation only for want of

        proper communication or replies from the concerned Revenue Authorities.

        6)                      Smt. Bhide, seeks time to ponder upon the said fact and to

        adopt          necessary        remedial    measures    in      that   by   the   concerned

        Authority/Authorities.

        7)                      Stand over to 13th October, 2026.

        8)                      To be listed under the caption “for reporting compliance”.



                     (KAMAL KHATA, J.)                                   (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

             Digitally signed                                                                        2/2
             by SANJIV
SANJIV       SHARNAPPA
SHARNAPPA    MASHALKAR
MASHALKAR    Date:
             2026.09.18
             18:56:43 +0530


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.