Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PRAKASH PATIL AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRIN. SEC HOME DEPT. AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed off as Withdrawn

Holding

The Court held that the writ petition cannot be entertained for alleged fraud after a considerable lapse of time and that no liberty can be granted to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause.

Summary

The petitioners sought to challenge Gram Sabha resolutions passed in 2023, alleging that their signatures were fraudulently used and that their rights were affected. They requested a declaration that the resolutions were invalid and, after an adjournment, asked to withdraw the petition and file a fresh one on the same cause. The Court observed that the allegations of fraud and fabrication were raised after a considerable lapse of time and therefore could not be entertained within writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court held that even if the petition were withdrawn, the petitioners could not be granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same issue. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with the Court directing the petitioners to pursue their grievance through appropriate legal proceedings.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition can be entertained for alleged fraud in Gram Sabha resolutions passed in 2023.
  • Whether the petitioners may be permitted to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause after withdrawing the present petition.

Subjects

  • Gram Sabha
  • writ jurisdiction
  • fraud
  • fabrication
  • withdrawal
  • fresh petition
  • Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
  • Maharashtra

Judgment

                                                                                               11-WP-10478-2026.doc



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 10478 OF 2026

                   Prakash Patil and others                                              ...Petitioners
                               Versus
                   State of Maharashtra and others                                       ...Respondents
SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO                                                      ******
Digitally signed
by SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO
                   Mr. Nitin Kaskar, i/b Ms. Priya Patil for Petitioners.
Date:
2026.09.03
14:44:21 +0530
                   Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G.P., a/w Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for
                   Respondents/State.
                                                              ******
                                                           CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                                   SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                              DATE : 02nd SEPTEMBER 2026.
                   PC:


                   1.     On 19/08/2026, this Court had passed the following order:

                                 “1.     An adjournment is sought on the ground of personal
                                 difficulty of the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

                                 2.      Although we are inclined to adjourn the hearing of this
                                 petition for the said ground, a perusal of the writ petition shows that
                                 the Petitioners appear to be challenging Gram Sabha Resolutions of
                                 the year 2023, prima facie, without any cogent reason.

                                 3.      List under the same category of fresh matters on 2 nd
                                 September 2026.”

                   2.     Today when the petition is called out for hearing, the learned counsel

                   for the Petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw this

                   petition and further seeks liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of

                    Bhalerao                                                                                    1
                                                               11-WP-10478-2026.doc


action.


3.        We have perused the present writ petition and as noted in our order

dated 19/08/2026, we do not find any cogent ground made out in this

petition to even consider the prayers made in the petition. The prayers

pertain to declarations in respect of resolutions of Gram Sabha passed in the

year 2023. The Petitioners claim that although their rights were allegedly

affected by such Gram Sabha Resolutions, they were not present when such

Resolutions were passed and their signatures were allegedly fraudulently

shown in the Gram Sabha proceedings.


4.        We are of the opinion that since the allegations made by the

Petitioners pertain to the question of fraud and fabrication, which are raised

after considerable period of time, such a grievance cannot be entertained in

writ jurisdiction. Therefore, even if the Petitioners intend to withdraw this

writ petition, there is no question of granting liberty to file a fresh writ

petition on the same cause of action.


5.        In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

However, the Petitioners may agitate their grievance with regard to alleged

fraud and fabrication by instituting proceedings strictly in accordance with

law.




 (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                         (MANISH PITALE, J.)

 Bhalerao                                                                       2


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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