Bombay High Court
Dilip S/O Rambhau Jadhav And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Of ... on 22 August, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:8318-DB
1 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4627 OF 2025
1. Shri Dilip S/o Rambhau Jadhav,
Aged 61 yrs., Occupation : Social Work,
R/o At Ramnagar, Jadgavhan, Post Tornala,
Tahsil Malegaon, District Washim.
2. Shri Prataprao S/o Anandrao Ghuge,
Aged 51 yrs., Occupation : Social work,
R/o At Eranda, Tahsil Malegaon, District Washim.
3. Shri Rajesh S/o Babarao Sangale,
Aged 49 years, Occupation : Social work,
R/o At and Post Eranda, Tahsil Malegaon,
District Washim.
4. Shri Vikas S/o Uttam Kamble,
Aged 35 yrs., Occupation : Social work,
R/o At Waroda, Post Eranda, Tahsil Malegaon,
District Washim.
5. Shri Aakash S/o Kailash Wankhede,
Aged 28 yrs., Occupation : Social Worker,
R/o At Borala, Post Eranda, Tahsil Malegaon,
District Washim.
6. Shri Kacharu S/o Keshav Zombade,
Aged 39 yrs., Occupation : Social Work,
R/o At and Post Kinhi Raja, Tahsil Malegaon,
District Washim.
7. Shri Tanaji S/o Navnath Mukhada,
Aged 45 yrs., Occupation : Social work,
R/o At Bhairal doh, Post Eranda, Tahsil Malegaon,
District Washim.
8. Shri Pundalik S/o Motiram Ghuge,
Aged 45 yrs., Occupation : Social Work
R/o At Bhairal Doh, Post Eranda, Tahsil
Malegaon, District Washim.
... PETITIONERS
2 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
Amended as per 9. Ishwar Bhopa Jadhav,
order dated Age : 39 years, Occu. Agri.
18.08.2025.
R/o At Udi, Post Amana, Tal. Malegaon,
Dist. Washim.
... PETITIONERS
(INTERVENERS)
10. Arun Bhimrao Ghuge,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o At Mairal Doh, Post Yeranda,
Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
11. Gajanan Mahadeo Kakde,
Age : 34 years, Occu.: Agri.
R/o At Khadki, Post Pangari,
Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
12. Raju Chandusingh Jadhav,
Age 39 years, Occu. : Agri.
R/o At Pangari Dhankute, Post Kata,
Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
13. Santosh Keshav Dhangar,
Age : 39 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o At Masla, Post Amkheda,
Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary of
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati, Tahsil
& District Amravati.
3. The Collector, Washim, Tahsil &
District Washim.
4. The State Election Commission,
through its State Election Commissioner,
having office at First Floor, New Administrative
Building, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai 400032. ... RESPONDENTS
3 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
===================================
Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioner Nos.1 to 8.
Shri Yashowardhan Sambre, Advocate for applicants/intervenor Nos. 9
to 13.
Shri D. V. Chauhan, Senior Counsel and Government Pleader with Shri
D. P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader and Shri Chaitnya Dhruv,
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri A. M. Kukday, Advocate for respondent No.4.
===================================
CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
DATED : 22/08/2025.
JUDGMENT (Per: Ajit B.Kadethankar, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER :
2] Vide present writ petition u/a 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to quash and
set aside the decision taken by the respondent No.2 - Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati on 11/08/2025 whereby the said
authority has 'included and excluded' some villages 'in and out' of
Gats/Gans of Zilla Parishad, Washim and the Panchayat Samities
falling therein. Precisely, the petitioners have challenged the ward
formation and formation of electoral divisions that is being carried
for ongoing general elections of Zilla Parishad Washim and
Panchayat Samitis therein.
4 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
3] The brief facts of the case are as under :-
3.1 The elections to the local bodies in the State of
Maharashtra have fallen overdue on account of pending challenges
to certain statutory provisions and amendments in the Local Body
Laws. Vide its order dated 06/05/2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19756/2021 with connected
matters, issued directions to State Election Commission as well as
to the State Government, thereby mandating to conduct elections
to the Local Bodies in the State of Maharashtra immediately and to
conclude the same within a period of four months. Those
directions are reproduced as below for ready reference :-
i] The elections to the local bodies shall be notified by the
State Election Commission within four weeks;
ii] The reservation shall be provided to the OBC communities
as per the law as it existed in the State of Maharashtra prior to
the 2022 Report of the Banthia Commission.
iii] An endeavor shall be made to conclude the elections
within a period of four months. However, the State Election
Commission shall be at liberty to seek extension of time in
appropriate cases; and
iv] The Elections shall be held subject to the outcome of these
proceedings.
3.2 An election to local body comprises of three stages i.e.
i] Ward formation & reservation,
ii] Finalizing Electoral Rolls (Voters' Lists), and
5 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
iii] Actual election process which comprises of nominations,
publication of valid nominations, allotment of election symbols,
polling and declaration of the election results.
3.3 Section 12 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (for the sake of brevity, "Act of
1961"), empowers the State Government to divide the district into
equal electoral divisions for the purpose of the election. Section 12
(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,
1961 is reproduced as under :-
"Section 12. Division of District into electoral division.- (1) [The
[State Government or an officer authorised by it, with the
approval of the State Election Commission] shall, for the purposes
of election of Councillors divide every District;] into electoral
divisions (the territorial extent of any such division not being
outside the limits of the same Block), each returning one
Councillor, and there shall be a separate election for each electoral
division :
[Provided that, such electoral division shall be divided in such a
manner that the ratio between the population of each electoral
division and the total number of Councillors to be elected for the
Zilla Parishad shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout
the Zilla Parishad area :]
[Provided further that, while distributing such electoral divisions
among the Panchayat Samitis, not less than two electoral divisions
shall be allotted to each Panchayat Samit.]
3.4 Accordingly, the State of Maharashtra initiated the
ward formation process for the purpose of election to the Zilla
6 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
Parishads and Panchayat Samities in the State of Maharashtra
including Washim Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities therein.
The State of Maharashtra through its Rural Development
Department Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities issued an
Election Order naming it "Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities
General Elections (Number of Members and Ward Formation)
Order, 2025 on 12/06/2025 (Hereinafter referred to as "Election
Order of 2025").
3.5 The Election Order of 2025 comprehensively comprises
the entire procedure for preparing wards i.e. Electoral Divisions
commonly known as Nirwachan Gat and Gans.
Clause (4) of the Election Order of 2025 lays down the
procedure of preparing Electoral Divisions and Nirwachan Gan
and Gats. For that, a Committee is composed in the order itself
which comprises of :-
i] An Officer of Deputy Collector Cadre designated by the
District Collector;
ii] Three Tehsildars conversant with ward formation process.
iii] Computer Technician and
iv] Other staff officers as per requirement.
3.6 The aforesaid Committee prepares a draft design of
ward formation. In view of Clauses (5) & (6), such draft is to be
7 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
published by the designated officers publicly inviting objections /
suggestions to the draft to be lodged within a specified period.
3.7 Clause (7) contemplates hearing on objections those
received within the given stipulated period.
3.8 Clause (8) provides for publication of the final ward
formation.
3.9 In the case in hand, the State of Maharashtra declared the
ward formation program for the general election to the Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis in the State of Maharashtra on
12/06/2025. The Schedule-A to the said program prescribes a
schedule for ward formation as follows :-
Programme Till
i] Publication of ward formation notice 14/07/2025
ii] Period to lodge objections and 21/07/2025
suggestions.
iii] Submission of proposed draft along 28/07/2025
with opinions by the District Collector
to the Divisional Commissioner.
iv] Conducting hearing on the objections 11/08/2025
and suggestions followed by the
decision thereon by the Divisional
Commissioner.
v] Submissions of final ward formation 18/08/2025
8 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
by the District Collector to the State
Election Commission for its approval.
3.10 It is undisputed that the aforesaid program has been
conducted by the concerned authorities as per the given schedule.
The petitioners lodged their grievance and suggestions within
stipulated time. They objected for inclusion of certain village in
particular electoral divisions and also for exclusion of particular
villages out of some of electoral divisions and Gans and Gats. The
District Collector remarked his opinion thereon and submitted the
same to the Respondent No.2 - the Divisional Commissioner
Amravati. The Respondent No.2 - Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati considered the material put before him/her and passed
the decision on the objections and suggestions. Its being
dissatisfied with decision of the Respondent No.2 in respect of
certain villages, the Petitioners have rushed with the prayers to
quash and set aside the ward formation as prayed in the prayer
clauses. We have discussed further each objection of the
Petitioners.
4. PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS :
i] Petitioners objects inclusion of village Mairal Doh to
Jaulka Gan / Gat against its removal from Kinhi Raja Gan / Gat.
9 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
ii] Petitioners also object removal of Jamkhed from
Brahmanwada Gan and its addition to Jaulka Gan/Gat. Objection
is also for removal of Udi, Dhamdami and Vardari Khurd Village
from Jaulka Gan/Gat against its addition to Kinhi Raja Gat and
Kavardari Gan.
iii] Petitioners have further objection of addition of village
Pangari Dhankute and Khadki Ijara to Pangari Nawghare Gan/Gat
and against its removal from Jaulka Gan/Gat and Jodgavhan Gat.
iv] Further objection of petitioners' is against addition of
Masala (kh) to Brahmanwada Gat and Borgaon Gan by removing
it from Pangari Navghare Gan/Gat.
v] The body of writ petition consists grounds for the petition
in respect of the aforesaid transposition of the villages for the
purpose of ward formation.
PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT:-
4.1 Firstly, while effecting the ward formation, the
parameters laid down in the Election Order of 2025 are not at all
followed by the respondent No.2.
4.2 Secondly, the respondent No.2 has unnecessarily taken
exception to the opinions rendered by the District Collector.
10 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
4.3 Thirdly, there is apprehension that the voters from the
transposed villages would face difficulty reaching to the polling
booths allotted to the said villages.
4.4 Fourthly, that since there is no change in population
after the National Census of 2011, there was no need to disturb
the earlier ward formation that was carried for earlier elections
which were based on the same National Census of 2011.
4.5 With this, the petitioners sought to quash and set aside the
order passed by the respondent No.2 - Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati dated 11/08/2025 whereby the ward formation
objections are decided. Pertinently, the petitioners also pray for
cancellation of the Ward Formation final program and to
reschedule the same by postponing it.
4.6 Vide prayer for interim relief, the petitioners also prayed for
postponement of the ward formation process and stay to the
impugned decision dated 11/08/2025 passed by the respondent
No.2 - Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.
5. RESPONSE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT :-
5.1 At the outset, learned Senior Counsel and Government
Pleader Shri D.V.Chauhan, vehemently raised preliminary
11 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
objections on maintainability of the writ petition at this juncture.
He relied upon the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Pradhan Sangh
Kshettra Samiti and others, reported in 1995 Supp(2) Supreme
Court Cases 305. He also relied upon the Judgment rendered by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench in the
case of Sameer Subhash Rajurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2020 (3) ABR 205. The learned Senior Counsel and
Government Pleader continued further to object maintainability of
the writ petition referring to the Judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anugraha Narayan Singh
Vrs. State of U.P and others, reported at 1996 (6) SCC 303.
5.2 The learned Senior Counsel and Government Pleader
insisted that the series of the Judgments cited supra consistently
show view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also by this Court to
not to interfere into the electoral process referring to the
constitutional bar u/a 329, 243-O and 243-ZG that bars
interference of the Courts in the electoral matters except by
appropriate forum in an Election Petition.
5.3 In view of the Amended Section 12 of the Act of 1961,
the State Government has been entrusted with responsibility to
prepare ward formation and formation of electoral divisions Gans,
12 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
Gats as the case may be for the purpose of election to the Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samities. Accordingly, the State
Government has taken the process of ward formation into its
hands.
5.4 That, the entire process of ward formation has been
meticulously prescribed in the Election Order of 2025. That, the
said order provides for appointment of competent authorities for
every stage, as also their jobs and their authority in that regard.
5.5 That, the authorities designated and authorized in the
Order of 2025 performed their jobs as prescribed in the Order of
2025. Suffice to note that the draft ward formation notice was
published by the District Collector, the objections and suggestions
received by the District Collector. The remarks were submitted by
the District Collector to the Divisional Commissioner, and
Divisional Commissioner has taken final decision on the objections
& suggestions that too by giving thoughtful consideration to the
objections, corresponding record, and the remarks recorded by the
District Collector.
5.6 The learned Government Pleader specifically insisted
that every opportunity of hearing was given to the objectors
wherever such opportunity was prescribed.
13 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
5.7 That, the elections are being conducted under the
orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court and interference in ongoing
election process would not only be hit by Constitutional bars
(supra), but also would result in delay in ongoing election process,
which would be in violation of the order dated 06/05/2025 passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C)
No.19756/2021 with connected matters.
5.8 Lastly, learned Senior Counsel and Government
Pleader objects that the writ petition is premature one as the Ward
Formation is not yet published in the Official Gazette, and that
merely based on Petitioners' apprehension of losing an opportunity
to contest the ensuing election from particular place.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION :-
6] We have cautiously heard Shri A.M.Ghare, learned
counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 to 8, Shri Y.N.Sambre, learned
counsel for intervenor Nos. 9 to 13 and learned Senior Counsel
and Government Pleader Shri D. V. Chauhan for respondent Nos.1
to 3.
7] We have minutely gone through the record produced by
both the parties, particularly the objections raised by the
petitioners to the draft ward formation. We may clarify here that
14 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
although learned Government Pleader has strenuously objected
maintainability of the writ petition, considering the urgency in the
matter and the nature of objections raised by the petitioners in the
democratic process that is going at root level of democracy, we
have dealt the issues on merits as follows:-
i] It is pertinent to note that Section 12 of the Act of 1961
refers to the term "population" of the district for the purpose of
division of wards, electoral divisions Gans/Gats, as the case may
be.
ii] Section 2 Sub-Section (22-A) of the Act of 1961
defines "population" as "population as ascertained at the last
preceding Census of which the relevant figures have provisionally
or finally be published".
iii] Undisputed, after Census - 2011, no further National
Census is conducted yet so far. Hence, the population that would
be considered for the purpose of present election, is the present
population recorded in the National Census - 2011.
iv] Although the petitioners' contention that 'as there is no
change in population since last election, there is no need to re-
form wards or to disturb the earlier ward formation', prima facie
appears to be appealing; however it cannot be overlooked that
15 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
over the years, naturally as also eventually there happens physical
changes in the area and boundaries of the villages. Keeping in
mind this factual aspect of expansion and depletion of village area
affecting placement of population, the ward formation for every
election is necessary. The petitioners could not demonstrate as to
how the physical status of boundaries and area of the concerned
villages have remained the same with the same population, after
last election in order to avoid revisiting the ward formation. It is of
course a critical disputed question of facts. In the absence of any
such cogent evidence, petitioners' contention cannot be accepted
that there was no need for ward formation due to merely
consistent number of population based upon the latest Census.
v] Now, we will deal with the petitioners' actual objection of
transposition of villages "to & from" certain Gans/Gats. We have
gone through the record produced before us which shows that the
objections are omnibus and not meticulous. Merely attachment
and detachment of some villages to some electoral divisions, Gats/
Gans as the case may be, would not give petitioners a good and
cautious ground to challenge the ward formation process.
vi] The learned Government Pleader has demonstrated
that the Election Order of 2025 permits variance of 10% [+/-]
population in the electoral divisions, Wards, Gats/Gans, etc. as the
16 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
case may be. Obviously, there cannot be a perfect equal division of
population in all the Electoral Divisions, wards, Gans/Gats, etc.
That's why a provision for permissible variance in the
proportionate population is made. Even the Statute also says that
'as far as possible' an equal proportion of population shall be
maintained while carving out the electoral divisions, wards, etc.
We accept the argument of learned Government Pleader that
where villages have been attached to a particular Gans/Gats,
another portion of that Gans/Gats has also been detached and that
there is no dis-balance in the population of the Gans/Gats,
electoral divisions as the case may be. At the cost of repetition,
learned Government Pleader submits that the Election Order of
2025 prescribes for equal distribution of the population amongst
the electoral divisions Gans / Gats, etc. yet a permissible variance
of 10% + (-) is provided therein. As stated supra, there cannot be
perfect equal division of population. If so, we are not able to
accept the contention of the petitioners that the attachment /
detachment of some villages to / from some electoral division,
Gans/Gats, etc. has resulted into such grave illegality that the
entire ward formation process is liable to be set aside.
vii] A profitable reference can be made to a Judgment rendered
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in the case
17 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
of Prashant s/o Subhash Desarda Vrs. The State of Maharashtra
and others in Writ Petition No.3010/2015 and other connected
matters, decided on 23/03/2015, wherein it is observed that 'some
here and there in the ward formation process to the local bodies is
also possible on account of difficulty in dividing the wards in equal
proportion of population, the physical boundaries of the wards,
villages and the area of village, ward, electoral division, and the
population residing therein (emph).
viii] We find it difficult to concede the petitioners'
contentions that the parameters laid down in the Election Order of
2025 are not adhered to by the authorities. The said Election
Order prescribes the procedure for ward formation. The record
shows that the procedure was followed by the designated
authorities. As held above, certain exceptions to the given
parameters fall under the permissible limit, as prescribed by the
same Election Order. The authority of the respondent No.2 -
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati to take decision on the
objections raised by the objectors has been conferred upon him for
the Election Order of 2025. This objection of the petitioners
predominantly objects as observed above, to attachment and
detachment of certain villages to other Gans and Gats excepting
the last ward formation.
18 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
ix] Learned Advocate Shri Ghare for the Petitioners
strenuously urged to convince that the respondent No.2 -
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati could not have interfered into
the remarks recorded by the District Collector, we hold the same
difficult to accept. It is for the obvious reason that under the
Election Orders of 2025, the District Collector is authorized merely
to publish the draft formation as suggested by the prescribed
committee to invite objections and suggestions thereon put his/her
remark to the respondent No.2 - Divisional Commissioner for
appropriate decision.
x] The respondent No.2 - Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
is the only Competent Designated Authority to take decision on
the objections, suggestions and remarks received thereon. It
cannot be accepted that the remark given by the District Collector
is binding upon the Divisional Commissioner. It is quite obvious
that every ward formation is an outcome of acceptance of certain
objections & suggestions as well as rejection of certain objections
& suggestions. Petitioners' contention that possibility of allotment
of such reservation to the re-formed electoral divisions, Gans and
Gats that would deprive them of contesting the ensuing elections,
cannot be a good ground to upset the ongoing election process.
19 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
xi] Now, while dealing with Petitioners' objection apprehending
the difficulty to the voters to attend the polling booths is
concerned, we take on record the assurance advanced by the
learned Government Pleader that every arrangement of polling
booths shall be made to the voters at their convenience in every
village. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that
the authorities are cautious about the convenience of the voters to
participate in the democratic process of elections and they would
not face any difficulty, nor would they miss an opportunity to cast
their votes merely on the count of unavailability of polling booths
or difficulty in reaching to the polling booths. We trust the
assurance and direct the State Authorities to ensure that no voter
would be deprived of casting his vote merely on account of
unavailability of polling booth.
xii] It would not be out of place to mention that
intervention applications filed by some interveners are taken on
record and looking to the body of intervention application, their
respective interests and arguments are thoroughly covered vide
the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra,
respectively.
20 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
xiii] We also take on record that to counter the response of
the learned Government Pleader on the point of premature
petition, Shri A.M.Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1
to 8 relied upon the Judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Hanif Musa Kazi Vrs. State of
Maharashtra and others, reported in 2023 (3) Mh.L.J. 84. He
submits that as has been held in the case of Hanif Musa Kazi
(supra), the act of publishing the ward formation in the Official
Gazette is merely a ministerial act and would not disqualify the
writ petition on the point of premature stage. Para No.14 of the
said Judgment is reproduced as under :-
"14. Perusal of the Judgment in Jagannath Vs. State (supra)
shows that issue of 'ministerial act of notification in official
gazette by State' was directly an issue and section 16(1)(1C)(a)
and (b) and section 44 of the said Act, were directly under
consideration. Para 12 thereof reads thus :-
"12. The provisions of Section 16(1)(1C)(a) of the Act of
1965 start with a non-obstante clause. The aforesaid
provision provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1B) of section 16(1), a
Councillor shall be disqualified for being a Councillor
consequent upon the Caste Certificate Verification
Committee or any other competent authority declaring the
caste certificate of such Councillor to be invalid and
cancelling the same on the ground that it was based on a
false claim or declaration. The provision stipulates that
thereupon the Councillor shall be deemed to have vacated
his office on and from the date of declaration of such
certificate to be invalid and cancellation of the same by the
said Committee or the competent authority. The provision
21 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
further stipulates that the office of the Councillor would be
automatically vacated on the invalidation and cancellation
of the caste certificate of the Councillor concerned. Sub-
clause (b) of Section 16 (1)(1C) of the Act of 1965 then
stipulates that on any person having been disqualified for
being a Councillor and consequently his seat having
become vacant under clause (a), the State Government
shall, by notification in the official gazette, disqualify such
person for being a Councillor or being elected as a
Councillor for a period of six years from the date of such
order. A reading of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 16(1)
(1C) makes it clear that there is no discretion vested in the
State Government to issue or not to issue a notification in
the official gazette disqualifying such Councillor or person
for being a Councillor or being elected as a Councillor for a
period of six years from the date of such order. The act of
issuance of a notification in the official gazettee by the
Government under the provisions of Section 16(1)(1C)(b)
of the Act of 1965 is merely a ministerial act and it could
not be said that the Councillor was not disqualified for
being elected for a period of six years merely because the
State Government had failed to perform the ministerial act
of issuing a notification in the official gazette, disqualifying
such Councillor. Thus, a combined reading of sub-clauses
(a) and (b) of Section 16 (1)(1C) of the Act of 1965 leaves
no doubt that a Councillor would be disqualified for being
a Councillor and for being elected as a Councillor for a
period of six years after the order is passed by the Caste
Certificate Verification Committee or any other competent
authority declaring the caste certificate of the Councillor to
be invalid. No sooner the Caste Certificate Verification
Committee or any other competent authority passes an
order cancelling the caste certificate of the Councillor than
the Councillor is deemed to have vacated his office and is
further disqualified for being a Councillor or being elected
as a Councillor for a period of six years from the date of
such order. The 2nd Ad hoc Additional District Judge was,
therefore, not justified in holding that the respondent No.5
could not have been held to be disqualified for being a
Councillor or for being elected as a Councillor for a period
of six years, in the absence of issuance of a notification by
the Government in the official gazette under the provisions
of Section 16(1)(1C)(b) of the Act of 1965."
22 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
May it be, as stated supra, we have dealt the petition on
its merit itself and hence, there is no occasion to deal with on
maintainability issue of the writ petition as to whether it is a
premature or not. The issue remains open.
xiv] Now, this tempts us to refer two decisions rendered by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
In the case of Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo and another Vs.
Collector, Satara and another, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 109, it
has been held that what is mandatory is giving an opportunity to
raise objection in the ward formation / delimitation process.
Except objection alleging denial of opportunity to raise objection
during the ward formation process, no other ground could be
raised in writ petition against the ward formation process. In the
case in hand, the petitioners were given an opportunity to raise
objection. The objections were dealt on its own merit and
thereafter, the Petitioners are before this Court. Para No.12 of the
said Judgment is reproduced as under :-
"12. ....................... The plain reading of the above
referred observations made by the Apex Court would show
that if provisions of Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-O are
read together the delimitation of Panchayat area or the
formation of the constituencies in the said areas and
allotments of seats to the constituencies could be
challenged nor the Court can entertain such challenge
except on the ground that before delimitation, no
23 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
objections were invited and no hearing was given, even
though this challenge also could not be entertained after
the notification for holding the election is issued. The law
declared by the Apex Court is loud and clear and prohibits
Courts to entertain challenge in view of Articles 243-C,
243-K read with 243-O in respect of the above aspects, and
therefore the challenge raised by the petitioners pertaining
to delimitation of Panchayat area or that of formation of
constituency in the said area as well as allotment of seat to
such constituencies cannot be entertained by this Court
since the objections were invited, petitioners have raised
objections, hearing was given to them and it is only
thereafter the objections were rejected by the Collector
Satara by passing impugned order. The contentions
canvassed by the petitioners based on Rule 2 (5) of BVP
Rules, 1966 as well as Section 4 of MLR Code as well as
Section 2(4) of the BVP Act in view of Article 243-C, Article
243-K and 243-O coupled with the law declared by the
Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh (cited supra) is devoid
of substance."
xv] In another case of Anil Ramchandra Chondhe Vs. State
of Mahrashtra and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom
2249, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Bombay relying upon
Judgment in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh and another Vrs.
State of U. P. and others, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 303 has held
that a statutory remedy under concerned Local Body Act takes care
of every objection of the aggrieved party. Para No.17 of Anil
Ramchandra Chondhe (supra) is reproduced as under :-
"17. In the instant case, the Tahsildar had given an opportunity
to all concerned, including the Petitioner to file his objections and
suggestions with regard to the formation of wards and reservation
of seats between 7th February, 2020 to 14th February, 2020.
However, admittedly the Petitioner chose not to file any
objections or suggestions within the time prescribed. If the
Petitioner would have filed his objections/suggestions between 7 th
24 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
February, 2020 and 14th February, 2020, the SDO would have
enquired into the same, given a hearing to the Petitioner and
submitted his report to the Collector. It is only after the SDO
submitted his Report to the Collector and after a final notification
was issued in November 2020, that the Petitioner woke up from
his slumber and has attempted to impugn the
delimitation/reservation/formation of wards. In view of the
decision of this Court in the case of Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo
(supra), which follows the decision of the Apex Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh (supra), the grievance raised by the Petitioner at
this late stage, i.e. when the elections are to be held on 15 th
January, 2021, cannot be entertained. The Apex Court in the case
of Anugrah Narain Singh and another v. State of U.P. held,
"Moreover, it is well settled by now that if the election is
imminent or well under way, the Court should not intervene to
stop the election process. If this is allowed to be done, no election
will ever take place because someone or the other will always find
some excuse to move the Court and stall the elections." However,
it is clarified that the Petitioner can always pursue the remedy
provided under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
Act, 1959. If the said remedy is pursued, it will be open for the
parties to raise all their contentions. The above Writ Petition is
accordingly dismissed."
xvi] An objection in the ward formation process, particularly as
regards to the inclusion or exclusion a certain part out of area and
attachment or detachment from certain part, is a purely disputed
question of facts. While dealing with writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in a challenge to the ward
formation on the ground of such attachment or detachment, we
are cautious that we are not sitting in an Appeal over the decision
taken by the authorities designated for the election purpose. Such
disputed question of facts could very well be addressed in an
appropriate proceeding i.e. Election Petition.
25 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
xvii] Usually, locus of a party questioning ward formation is
highly disputed unless such party establishes grave procedural
defect and deprivation of an opportunity of hearing. An
apprehension of loss of probable voters' section or probable benefit
to another candidate due to addition of a voters' section cannot be
a ground to challenge a ward formation unless such objection
qualifies to the two tests (supra).
xviii] Needless to mention, in the elections to the Zilla Parishads
and Panchayat Samities in the State of Maharashtra, Section 27 of
the Act of 1961 provides a clear remedy to the aggrieved persons
like petitioners who could raise every objection in such election
petition / appeal.
xix] We are extremely cautious of the fact that the present
election processes are being conducted under the orders of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.19756/2021 with connected matters. We are cautious that any
order or direction varying or postponing any election stages of
ongoing election would not only disturb the election process, but
would result into delaying the schedule of election process
mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For this reason also,
26 907-J-WP-4627-2025.odt
none of the prayers in the writ petition can be entertained at this
juncture and in the present writ petition.
xx] Resultantly, we find that the petition falls short of merit
and is liable to be dismissed. Before parting, we appreciate the
able assistance of learned Counsels and learned Senior Counsel for
the respective parties by providing data on facts and as also the
law as is prevailing in the field.
Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No costs.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]
Choulwar
Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2025 19:58:58
