IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1641 OF 2011 DEVIDAS IGNOLE & ANOR ..VS.. STATE OF MAH AND ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner Shri A.S.Dhore, advocate for respondent no.5 Shri Patel, A.G.P. for state CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 21, 2011. It appears that the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati had passed an order on 14.3.2011 in an appeal filed by the respondent no.5 under section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958 for removal of the petitioner no.1 from the post of Sarpanch. By the said order dated 14.3.2011, the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati removed the petitioner no.1 from the post of Sarpanch and the petitioner no.2 from the post of member of the Gram Panchayat. It appears that after the order was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati on 14.3.2011 an appeal was filed against the said order by the petitioner before the State Government. It further appears that without seeking any interim orders in the said appeal and without waiting for the State Government to take up the appeal for passing of interim orders, the petitioners hurriedly moved this court and filed the petition on 29.3.2011, claiming therein that on 24.3.2011, no hearing was granted by the Minister for Rural Development when the appeal was filed. It appears that the petitioners have shown a great hurry in impatiently moving this court by filing the petition under articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, since the appeal is preferred by the petitioners before the Minister for Rural Development on 24.3.2011, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The respondent no.1 is however, directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE SMP