Bombay High Court
Suresh Raghunath Mhatre And Anr vs Awas Gram Panchayat And Ors on 14 June, 2017
Bench: A.S. Oka
206 wp 3794 wt 2860-08.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3794 OF 2005
Suresh Raghunath Mhatre )
Age 38 years, Occupation Agriculture, )
Resident of Kana, Taluka Alibag, )
District Raigad. ) ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. Group Gram Panchayat Sasawane, )
At & Post Sasawane, Taluka Alibag, )
District Raigad. )
2. Tehsildar, Alibag and Returning Officer, )
Group Gram Panchayat Sasawane, )
3. Addl. District Collector, Raigad, )
District Raigad. )
4. State Election Commission, Maharashtra )
having its office at Mantralaya Annexe )
Mumbai 400 032. )
5. State of Maharashtra ) ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2860 OF 2008
1. Suresh Raghunath Mhatre )
Age 41 years, Occupation Agriculture, )
Resident of Kana, Taluka Alibag, )
District Raigad. )
2. Group Gram Panchayat Sasawane, )
At & Post Sasawane, through Santosh )
Mahadeo Gavand, Age 45 Years, )
Occ: Agriculture, Incharge Sarpanch ) ... Petitioners
Sneha Chavan 1/5
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:59 :::
206 wp 3794 wt 2860-08.doc
V/s.
1. Awas Gram Panchayat, Awas )
Post Sasawane, Taluka Alibag, )
District Raigad. )
2. Tehsildar, Alibag and Returning Officer, )
Group Gram Panchayat Sasawane, )
3. District Collector, Raigad, )
District Raigad. )
4. State Election Commission, Maharashtra )
having its office at Mantralaya Annexe )
Mumbai 400 032. )
5. State of Maharashtra ) ... Respondents
-------
Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the Petitioner in both W.P.
Mr. Manish Pabale, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in both W.P.
Ms. D.S. Mondkar-Hule i/b Mr. S.B. Shetye for the Respondent No. 4 in
both W.P.
CORAM : A.S.OKA &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 14th JUNE, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. OKA, J.)
1. Writ Petition No. 3794 of 2005 concerns election of Group Gram
Panchayat of Sasawane. The election program was declared in the year
2005. A contention was raised by the Petitioner that the areas
Indrapai and Kana are part of village Avas, which is a revenue village,
included within the limits of Sasawane Gram Panchayat. An objection
was raised regarding the exclusion of villagers whose names appeared
Sneha Chavan 2/5
206 wp 3794 wt 2860-08.doc
in the voters' list of Vidhan Sabha Constituency and who were residents
of Indrapai and Kana. The challenge is to the communication dated
24th May, 2005 (Exh. D) issued by the Tahasildar communicating the
decision of the Additional Collector, Raigad dated 09 th May, 2005. The
decision was that as per Government Notification dated 01 st February
1995, revenue village Avas was not included within the limits of
Sasawane Gram Panchayat and there is no further notification issued
under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958
including the said village within the limits of Sasawane Gram
Panchayat. It was stated that areas of Indrapai, Kana and Wakde Ali
are not separate villages, but these areas are a part of revenue village
Avas.
2 In Writ Petition No. 2860 of 2008, the challenge is to the order
dated 01st February 2008 passed by the District Collector on objections
raised regarding exclusion of residents of villages/areas Indrapai, Kana
and Wakde Ali from the voters' list of Sasawane Gram Panchayat. In
the said order, it was mentioned that Indrapai and Kana had been
excluded from the limits of Sasawane Gram Panchayat and in fact the
decision excluding the said villages is subject matter of challenge in a
Writ Petition pending in this Court. Therefore, the objection regarding
non-inclusion was overruled.
3 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon a
notification published in the Government Gazette dated 07 th September
1961 issued under Sub-Section 1 of Section 10 of the said Act of 1958
for showing that revenue village Avas is included within the limits of
the said village Panchayat. His submission is that the impugned orders
Sneha Chavan 3/5
206 wp 3794 wt 2860-08.doc
are factually incorrect.
4 We have considered the submissions. As per Section 10A of the
said Act of 1958, the superintendence, direction and control of the
preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to
the Panchayats vests in the State Election Commissioner. Section 12
deals with the list of voters which reads thus:
"12. List of voters-(1) The electoral roll of the
[Maharashtra Legislative Assembly] prepared under the
provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLII of
1950) and in force on such day as the [the State Election
Commissioner may by order] notify in this behalf for such part
of the constituency of the Assembly as is included in a ward or a
village shall be the list of voters for such ward or village.
(2) An officer designated by the [State Election
Commission] in this behalf shall maintain a list of voters for
each such ward or village."
5 Thus, lists of voters for the election of a village panchayat is
prepared on the basis of electoral roll of the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly in force on such date as be notified by the State Election
Commissioner by an order. The effect of sub-section (1) of Section 12
is that the electoral roll for election of a village panchayat will be the
electoral roll for such part of the Constituency of the Assembly as is
included in a village or a ward.
6 In the impugned order in the first Writ Petition as well as in the
affidavit-in-reply filed by the Additional Collector, it is contended that
boundaries of the village Sasawane have been delineated under the
Gazette notification dated 01st February 1995 and Indrapai, Kana and
Wakde Ali are not included within the limits of Sasawane village
panchayat.
Sneha Chavan 4/5
206 wp 3794 wt 2860-08.doc
7 The petitioners are relying upon the old notification of 7 th
September, 1961.
8 For each election of village panchayat, the electoral roll is
required to be prepared as per Sub-Section 1 of Section 12 of the said
Act of 1958. In the present case, the objection was raised to the
electoral roll prepared in the year 2005. As per the notification dated
01st February, 1995, the area of Avas village comprising of Indrapai and
Kana was not included in the village panchayat Sasawane. Hence, the
impugned orders cannot be faulted with. If in future, village Avas is
included in village Sasawane, the petitioners can raise that contention
when an electoral roll for elections to be held in future is prepared.
9 In view of this position, it is not necessary to entertain these
petitions on merits.
10 Subject to what is observed above, Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)
Sneha Chavan 5/5
