Bombay High Court
SANDEEP SADASHIV BELKAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed the District Collector to decide the pending representation within twelve weeks and required that Respondent No.7 be heard before any decision is taken.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra to decide a representation dated 31 October 2025, which was intended to implement a Special Gram Sabha Resolution passed on 13 August 2025. The petitioners argued that the representation had remained pending for almost a year and that the District Collector, as the ultimate authority, should be compelled to act. The Court examined whether it could issue a mandamus‑type direction to an administrative authority and whether procedural fairness required a hearing to any interested party. It held that the District Collector must decide the pending representation within twelve weeks from the date of the order. The Court also directed that Respondent No.7, a person concerned with the decision, be given an opportunity to be heard before any determination is made. The petition was disposed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct a District Collector to decide a pending representation within a specified time frame.
- Whether an interested party (Respondent No.7) must be afforded a hearing before the representation is decided.
Subjects
- Gram Sabha
- representation
- District Collector
- writ petition
- administrative law
- hearing
- mandamus
Judgment
1 14-wp-16507-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16507 OF 2025
Sandeep Sadashiv Belkar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through Principal
Secretary and Others ...Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Ajit Kenjale a/w. Mr. Sohil Gulabani, for the Petitioners.
Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP, for the Respondent / State.
Mr. Amogh P. Khadye i/b. Bar & Brief Attorneys, for Respondent No.7.
Mr. P. H. Gaikwad with Mr. S. V. Gavand, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
-----------------
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2026.10.05
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
18:56:23
+0530
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATED : 5th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C.:-
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to decide the Petitioners’ Representation dated 31 st
October 2025 to implement the Special Gramsabha Resolution dated 13 th
August 2025. There are other reliefs sought which the learned Counsel for
the Petitioners is not pressing.
2. Considering that the Representation has been addressed by the
Petitioner almost a year back viz., 31st October 2025, and that it is the
Mamta Kale 1/2
2 14-wp-16507-2025.doc
Respondent No.2 District Collector who is the ultimate Authority to decide
the Representation, we consider it appropriate to direct Respondent No.2
District Collector to decide the pending Representation of the Petitioner
dated 31st October 2025 within a period of twelve weeks from today, in
accordance with law.
3. Respondent No.7, being a person concerned with any decision
to be taken on the Representation, shall be afforded an opportunity of being
heard by Respondent No.2, the District Collector, before any decision is
taken on the said Representation.
4. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no
order as to costs.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
Mamta Kale 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.