Bombay High Court

SANJAY HIMMAT PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed as there is no encroachment and the local body’s term has ended.

Summary

Sanjay Himmat Patil filed a writ petition seeking the disqualification of respondents 4 to 6 on the ground of alleged encroachment. The respondents argued that the term of the local body had expired and that the authorities had found no encroachment. The Court examined the submissions and the findings of the authorities. Finding that there was no evidence of encroachment and that the local body’s term was over, the Court held that the petition had no remaining basis. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner seeks disqualification of local‑body members on alleged encroachment?
Does the finding of no encroachment and the expiry of the local body’s term render the writ petition untenable?

Subjects

writ petition
disqualification
encroachment
local body
jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                           5-sr905.wp1794.2024


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 905 WRIT PETITION NO. 1794 OF 2024
                         Sanjay Himmat Patil
                               VERSUS
                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                                  ----
Mr.Viraj S Yelmame h/f. Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Advocate for
petitioner
Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Mr.A.A.Fulfagar, Advocate for respondent nos.4 to 6
                                  ----

                          CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                          DATE  :      AUGUST 25, 2026
ORDER :-

            It is submitted across the bar by learned advocate for the

respondent nos.4 to 6 that the term of the local body is over.             He

submits that the petitioner is the complainant who has sought

disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 6 on account of alleged

encroachment.    The    authorities   have   held   that     there    is   no

encroachment.

2.          In view of the above statement, nothing survives in the Writ

Petition. The petition stands disposed of.



                                  [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                                ………..
KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…