Bombay High Court
Pratibha Govind Pandeji vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 27 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:19672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5976 OF 2022
PRATIBHA GOVIND PANDEJI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS
Mr. K. F. Shingare, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. U. S. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 6 and 7.
---
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5968 OF 2022
SHIVRAM JAGANNATH MHASKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS
Mr. K. F. Shingare, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. U. S. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 6 and 7.
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2024
P.C. :-
1. The petitioner who is a member of village panchayat raised
the challenge to the proceeding of meeting convened for election of
Sarpanch and Upsarpanch of the village. The election dispute was filed
before respondent no.3-Collector, Aurangabad on two grounds, firstly,
the notice of meeting was not complying requirement of Rule 4 of the
947.wp5976.22.odt 1 of 4
Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch & Upsarpanch) Election Rules,
1954 (for short 'the Rules') as three clear days notice was not served to
the members of the village panchayat. Secondly, the elections symbols
were allotted instead conducting election by raising of the hands. The
District Collector after considering the rival submissions rejected the
dispute vide order dated 18/11/2021. The petitioner preferred appeal No.
64 of 2021 before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 33 (5)
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Learned Divisional Commissioner
also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of District Collector.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner
approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Mr. Shingare, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that there was no compliance of requirement of Rule 4 as three
clear days notice was not given to the members although, he admits that
the notice was served on 04/02/2021 and meeting was held on
08/02/2021. According to him in between there were two holidays,
therefore, the notice does not meet with requirement. He would further
submit that the allotment of symbol was illegal in terms of Rule 13 of the
Village Panchayat Election Rule. In support of his contentions he relies
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jaenendrakumar
Phoolchand Daftari Vs. Rajendra Ramsukh Mishra and others, AIR 1994
947.wp5976.22.odt 2 of 4
SC 586.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 6 and 7 as
well as learned AGP supports the impugned order.
5. Having considered the submission advanced it can be noted
that Rule 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch & Upsarpanch)
Election Rules, 1954 mandate that the Presiding Officer shall cause a
notice of meeting to be given to every person of panchayat at least three
clear days before the date of such meeting. In present case admittedly
the notice was served on the members on 04/02/2021 and meeting was
held on 08/02/2021. Therefore, there is no room to contend that three
clear days notice was not given in terms of the requirement of Rule 4.
Although Mr. Shingare, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that
there were two holidays between, he could not bring to the notice of this
Court any material in support of his preposition. Both the authorities
have concurrently held that there was compliance of the requirement of
Rule 4. No perversity or error is discernable from the approach of
authorities on this point.
6. So far as another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
that the allotment of symbol was illegal in the facts of the case, it can be
observed that the Rule 10 of Election Rules prescribes procedure of the
947.wp5976.22.odt 3 of 4
election of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch, the Rule 10(2) provides that the
election shall be by show of hands, however, if any member present at
the meeting demands that voting shall be by the ballot such mode can
be adopted. As can be seen from the minutes of meeting, the petitioner
himself appears to have demanded voting by ballot. Consequently, the
symbols were allotted and the voting by ballot was conducted. Therefore,
no illegality can be found in the procured followed at the meeting. Both
the authorities have elaborately dealt with aforesaid contentions and
rejected the same. This Court do not find any error in impugned orders.
No case is made out to cause interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Hence, petitions stand dismissed.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
ssp
947.wp5976.22.odt 4 of 4
