Hanumant Shankar Dalvi vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8370 Bom

                                               1

                                    UNREPORTED

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
                                  AT BOMBAY

                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                           WRIT PETITION NO.12777 OF 2017


          Hamumant Shankar Dalvi,
          Age 41 years, Occ.Agriculture,
          R/o Jawalake, Tal.Jamkhed,
          Dist.Ahmednagar.              ... Petitioner.


                           Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra
          through its Principal
          Secretary, Rural Development
          Department, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai-32.

          2. The Additional Collector,
          Ahmednagar.

          3. The Tahsildar,
          Tahsil Office, Jamkhed,
          Tal.Jamkhed, Dist.Ahmednagar.

          4. Maharashtra State Election
          Commission through its
          Chief Election Commissioner,
          Mumbai.                       ... Respondents.

                                         ...

          Mr.V.S.Undre, advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, Additional Government Pleader
          for the State.
          Mr.Shivaji T.Shelke, advocate for Respondent
          No.4.
                                   ...

                                        WITH
                           WRIT PETITION NO.12781 OF 2017




::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:24:55 :::
                                                2

          Jayashree Tanaji Walunjkar,
          Age major, Occ.household and
          Agriculture,R/o Jawalake,
          Tal. Jamkhed,Dist.
          Ahmednagar.                  ... Petitioner.

                           Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra
          through its Principal Secretary,
          Rural Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

          2. The Additional Commissioner,
          Nashik Division, Nashik.

          3. The Additional Collector,
          Ahmednagar.

          4. The Tahsildar, Tahsil
          Office, Jamkhed, Tal.
          Jamkhed, Dist.Ahmednagar.

          5. Maharashtra State
          Election Commission through
          its Chief Election Commissioner
          Mumbai.                       ... Respondents.

                                         ...

          Mr.V.S.Undre, advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr.P.S.Patil, Additional Government Pleader for
          the State.
          Mr.Shivaji T.Shelke, advocate for Respondent
          No.5.
                                   ...



                                CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                        SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

Date : 02.11.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, the petitions are taken up for final

hearing.

2. Mr.Yawalkar, learned Additional

Government Pleader waives service of Rule for

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.12777/2017 and

Mr.P.S.Patil, learned Additional Government

Pleader waives service of Rule for Respondent

Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.12781/2017.

3. Mr.Shelke, learned counsel waives

service of Rule for Election Commissioner.

4. We have heard learned counsel for

respective parties.

5. The petitioners are the members of the

Grampanchayat. On the ground of non-submission

of validity certificates within stipulated period

of six (6) months as required U/s 10-1A of the

Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, the

petitioners are disqualified under the impugned

orders.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in the

case of "Anant H.Ulahalkar and another Vs.Chief

Election Commissioner and others" reported in

2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431, had held that provisions of

Section 10-1A of Maharashtra Village Panchayats

Act, to be mandatory and the said judgment is

stayed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to

Appeal Nos.29874-29875 of 2016.

7. In light of the above, the impugned

orders are quashed and set aside. The

Respondent-authority is entitled to take further

course of action depending upon the judgment that

would be delivered by the Apex Court in the above

referred matters.

8. Rule accordingly made absolute in above

terms. No costs.

                             Sd/-                                Sd/-

          (SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.)                    (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

          asp/office/wp12777.17