Ramesh Dadarao Chavan vs The Additional Divisional Commissoner ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 14288 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ramesh Dadarao Chavan vs The Additional Divisional Commissoner ... on 6 May, 2024

                                                        21-wp-4731-2024.odt
                                  (1)


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 4731 OF 2024

                    Ramesh Dadarao Chavan
                             VERSUS
      The Additional Divisional Commissoner 2 And Others
                                 ...
    Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Kedar Shrimant Ravsaheb
          AGP for Respondents/State : Mrs. A.S. Mantri
 Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. R.V. Gore h/f Mr. Shaikh Tarek
                             Mobin H.
                                 ...
                                 CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : MAY 06, 2024

PER COURT:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the contesting respondent.

2. The election of Up-Sarpanch was held on 28.12.2022.

The petitioner was elected as Up-Sarpanch by a majority of 8 : 4. The

contesting respondent was the rival candidate for Up-Sarpanch. The

election was completed and video-graphed. After about one and a

half month, the contesting respondent impugned the procedure of the

election. It has been contended that the scrutiny of the nomination of

the withdrawal of the candidature as provided under Rule 9 and 9A of

the Maharashtra Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch)

Election Rules, 1964 shall be done after the commencement of the

meeting convened under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the 21-wp-4731-2024.odt

Maharasthra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. However in this case, the

Presiding Officer had declared the program for accepting the

nomination, withdrawal of the nomination and withdrawal of the

candidature. It was done prior to the meeting was commenced.

3. The contention of the respondent is that there is no

procedure laid down to declare the program in advance. The scrutiny

of nominations and the withdrawal of candidature shall be done in

the meeting before the elected members. This is a violation of the

rules. Therefore, the election of petitioner is in contravention of the

mandatory rules.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole

purpose of the election was there should be a transparency. The

contesting respondent did nothing for one and a half month. The

Commissioner has casually condoned the delay caused in preferring

the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent relied on

two judicial pronouncements of this Court in the case of Sangita

Pandurang Bankar and Ors Vs. Additional Commissioner, Pune

Division, Pune and Ors, 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 2549 and Aarti w/o

Santosh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors in Writ Petition

No.14612 of 2023 decided on 18.10.2023.

6. After hearing the respective counsels, the question is

whether the election of the petitioner is bad for declaring the program 21-wp-4731-2024.odt

for withdrawal, acceptance and withdrawal of nomination and

withdrawal of candidature before the meeting was commenced and it

is in violation of the Rules, 1964.

7. The petitioner is discharging the duties as Up-Sarpanch.

There is a serious objection about procedural defect committed by the

Presiding Officer. The petition may be heard finally after the

vacation. However, to protect the interest of villagers/voters at large,

there shall be stay to the impugned judgment and order of the

Additional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar passed in

Appeal No.2023/Grampanchayat/Appeal-2/CR-499 dated 27.03.2023

till the next date.

8. The respondents are at liberty to file affidavit in reply, if

they desires.

9. The matter shall be listed for final hearing at the

admission stage on 10.06.2024 'high on board'.

(S.G. MEHARE, J.)

Mujaheed//