Bombay High Court
Baban Vishnu Tupere And Others vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 19 September, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:25267-DB
1 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10237 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8823 OF 2025
Abhijeet S/o Diliprao Deshmukh,
Age : 45 years, Occ. : Agri. & Social Service,
R/o : Dongargaon (Pul)
Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli .. Petitioner /
Applicant
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] The State Election Commission,
Through its Chief Election Commissioner,
New Administrative Bhavan,
Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Mumbai - 400 032.
3] The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
4] The Collector, Hingoli,
Tq. And Dist. Hingoli .. Respondents
...
Mr. Bhargav B. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f. Milind M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate for
Petitioner
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini a/w
Suraj Chakor for Maharashtra Election Commission
Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole AGP for R/State
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10362 OF 2025
Haribhau Nanasaheb Kumatkar
Age : 36 Years, Occu : Agri,
R/o. At Rajewadi, Post. Nannaj,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar ... Petitioner
2 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2] State Election Commission
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai.
through its Commissioner/Secretary
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division Nashik.
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar
Dist. Ahilyanagar
through Chief Executive Officer
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
through its Block Development Officer
9] Rushikesh Ashok Neharkar
Age: 42 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Telangashi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
10] Shahadev Baliram Jaybhay
Age: 43 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Telangashi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
3 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
11] Subhash Shamrao Jaybhay
Age: 41 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Jaybhaywadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
12] Ramdas Jaysing Jaybhay
Age: 58 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Jaybhaywadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
13] Maharudra Vishnu Mahanvar
Age: 41 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dhamangaon, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
14] Rajendra Bhima Kute
Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Bandhkhadak, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
15] Dhanaji Khanderao Phunde
Age: 55 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Bandhkhadak, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
16] Rama Navnath Gore
Age: 48 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Rajewadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
17] Abhiman Sahebrao Kumatkar
Age: 47 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Rajewadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10366 OF 2025
1] Baban Vishnu Tupere
Age : 61 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o. At. Post. Khandvi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
4 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
2] Dipak Digambar Netake
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. At. Post. Dislewadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
3] Prasanna Baliram Katrajkar
Age: 38 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. At. Post. Kusadgaon, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
4] Dadasaheb Somnath Gade
Age: 27 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. At. Post. Saradwadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2] State Election Commission
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai.
through its Commissioner/Secretary
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division Nashik.
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar,
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar
Dist. Ahilyanagar
through Chief Executive Officer
5 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
through its Block Development Officer
9] Ganesh Dadasaheb Jagtap
Age: 40 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dislewadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
10] Sadhu Laxman Madke
Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Khandavi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
11] Shahaji Dnyandev Maharnavar
Age: 40 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Sangavi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
12] Nivrutti Kishan Maharnavar
Age: 58 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Sangavi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
13] Keshav Raosaheb Katrajkar
Age: 53 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Kusadgaon, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
14] Anuskh Namdev Katrajkar
Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Kusadgaon, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
15] Dilip Dnyandev Gambhire
Age : 63 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o. Saradwadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar. ... Respondents
6 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10397 OF 2025
Santosh Uttamrao Pawar
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o. At. Post. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2] State Election Commission
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai.
through its Commissioner/Secretary
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division Nashik.
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar
Dist. Ahilyanagar
through Chief Executive Officer
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
through its Block Development Officer
7 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
9] Mahesh Tushar Pawar
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
10] Hanumant Bhagwan Dhale
Age : 43 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
11] Santosh Digambar Mohalkar
Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
12] Sunil Rajaram Hajare
Age : 39 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahilyanagar. ... Respondents
...
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for allPetitioners
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,
Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election
Commission
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar Advocate for Respondent nos. 7 & 8
Mr. A. P. Avhad and Mr. Shaikh Ashraf Patel, Advocate for Respondent
nos. 9,11, 13, 15 & 16 in WP/10362/2025
Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe Addl GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole AGP for Respondent -
State
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10408 OF 2025
Jyotiba Jayramji Kharate,
Age - 59 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Anjankhed, Tq. Mahur,
District : Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
8 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
2] Divisional Commissioner,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) Division,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)
3] District Collector, Nanded
Tq. and District : Nanded
4] Sub Divisional Officer,
Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat,
District : Nanded
5] Tahsildar, Tahsil Office,
Mahur, Tq. Mahur,
District : Nanded
6] State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State,
New Administrative Building,
Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Mumbai - 400 032.
Through its Secretary .. Respondents
...
Mr. Prashant R. Katneshwarkar Sr. Counsel a/w Harshvardhan Karad i/b Mr.
A. N. Nagargoje Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. Sachindra Shetye (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini, Advocate a/w
Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election Commission
Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -
State
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10565 OF 2025
Mangesh Govindrao Sukalkar,
Age - 44 years, Occu - Agri.,
R/o. Rui, Tq. Mahur,
District : Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
9 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
2] Divisional Commissioner,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) Division,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)
3] District Collector, Nanded,
Tq. and District : Nanded
4] Sub Divisional Officer,
Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat,
District : Nanded
5] Tahsildar, Tahsil Office,
Mahur, Tq. Mahur,
District : Nanded
6] The State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State,
New Administrative Building,
Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Mumbai - 400 032. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Ankush Nagargoje, Advocate h/f. Mr. Dhairyashil M. Mane Advocate for
Petitioner
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Chinmay V. Kini a/w
Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election Commission
Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe Addl GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -
State
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10568 OF 2025
Shahaji Dnyandeo Maharnavar,
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o. At. Po. Sangavi,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai - 32.
10 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
2] State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai
Through its Commissioner / Secretary
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar,
Dist. Ahilyanagar
Through Chief Executive Officer
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar,
Through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10569 OF 2025
Bharat Mahadeo Hodshil,
Age : 29 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o. At PO. Anandwadi,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai
through its Commissioner/Secretary
11 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar,
Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through Chief Executive Officer
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10570 OF 2025
Ashik Dnyanadeo More
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o At. Po. Ratnapur,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai
through its Commissioner/Secretary
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
12 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar,
Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through Chief Executive Officer
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10572 OF 2025
Akshay Appa Rakh
Age : 22 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o. At Dhanora, Post. Fakrabad,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai
through its Commissioner/Secretary
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
13 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar,
Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through Chief Executive Officer
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2025
Ganesh Namdev Sagle,
Age : 33 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o. At Po. Potewadi,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai
through its Commissioner/Secretary
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar,
Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through Chief Executive Officer
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents
14 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10575 OF 2025
Mahadeo Vithal Satav
Age : 59 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o. At. Po. Fakrabad,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai
through its Commissioner/Secretary
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik
4] District Collector,
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue
Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar
6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar
7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar,
Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through Chief Executive Officer
8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar,
through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents
...
Mr. Shaikh Ashpak Patel, Advocate h/f. Abhijit P. Avhad, Advocate for
Petitioner in all petitions.
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Chinmay V. Kini,
Advocate a/w Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election Commission
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 7 & 8
15 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe Addl GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -
State
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10571 OF 2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9815 OF 2025 IN WP/10571/2025
(Chandrasen Ishwarrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9748 OF 2025 IN WP/10571/2025
(Vijaykumar Balajirao Dhondge Vs. Ganesh Shivajirao Savle Patil & Ors.)
Ganesh Shivajirao Savle Patil,
Age 56 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. Dhanaj (Kd), Tq. Loha
District : Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary
For Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State,
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai
Through its Secretary
3] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
4] The Collector, Nanded,
District Nanded
5] The Deputy Collector, Nanded
District Nanded
6] The Tahsildar, Loha,
Tq. Loha, District - Nanded
7] The Tahsildar, Kandhar
Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded
8] The Zilla Parishad, Nanded
District Nanded
Through its Chief Executive Officer .. Respondents
...
16 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
Mr. V. D. Hon, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Shubham S. Kote, Advocate i/b Mr. A. V.
Hon, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,
Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election
Commission
Mr. Anilkumar B. Dhongade, Advocate for Applicant in CA/9748/2025
Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate h/f Mr. Abhishek D. Chapule, Advocate
for applicant in CA/9815/2025
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent no. 7
Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole AGP for R/State
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10806 OF 2025
Santosh Shankarappa Matwale
Age : 34 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Yergi, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] 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.
3] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Tq. & Dist. Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.
4] The District Election Officer / Collector, Nanded
Collector Office, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
17 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
5] The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor,
Deputy Collector Office, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
6] The Tahsildar, Degloor,
Tahsil Office, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
7] Vitthal Madhavrao Shinde
Age : Major, Occ : Agri.,
R/o. Karadkhed, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10818 OF 2025
Santosh Shankarappa Matwale
Age : 34 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Yergi, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] 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.
3] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Tq. & Dist. Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.
4] The District Election Officer / Collector, Nanded
Collector Office, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
18 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
5] The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor,
Deputy Collector Office, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
6] The Tahsildar, Degloor,
Tahsil Office, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
7] Rajeshwar Tejerao Mundkar,
Age : Major, Occ : Agri.,
R/o. Takli, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded ...Respondents
...
Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners in both WPs
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,
Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election
Commission
Mr. M. V. Salunke, Advocate h/f. Mr. Chandrakant Bodkhe, Advocate for
Respondent No. 7
Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -
State
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 10814 OF 2025
Dnyaneshwar s/o Annasaheb Chowre,
Age : 58 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Bhatumba, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Chief Secretary,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
3] The Collector,
Beed, Dist. Beed.
19 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
4] The Maharashtra Election Commissioner,
Mumbai ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10893 OF 2025
Sambhaji s/o Mohanrao Lomte,
Age : 34 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Hol, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Chief Secretary,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
3] The Collector,
Beed, Dist. Beed.
4] The Maharashtra Election Commissioner,
Mumbai ...Respondents
...
Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,
Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election
Commission
Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl, GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl, GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent
-State
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 10821 OF 2025
Gayabai W/o Sheshrao Andhale
Age : about Major 46 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Limbodi Village, Taluka Ashti,
District : Beed, Maharashtra. ...Petitioner
Versus
20 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Collector and District Election Officer,
Beed District, Beed, Maharashtra.
3] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (formerly Aurangabad).
4] The Cheief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed, Maharashtra.
5] The State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru
Chowk, Mumbai - 400032 ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10824 OF 2025
Tulsabai W/o Ajinath Garje,
Age : about 45 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Khilad Village, Taluka Ashti,
District : Beed, Maharashtra. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Collector and District Election Officer,
Beed District, Beed, Maharashtra.
3] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (formerly Aurangabad).
4] The Cheief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed, Maharashtra.
21 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
5] The State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru
Chowk, Mumbai - 400032 ... Respondents
...
Mr. N. B. Garje, Advocate for petitioners in both WPs
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,
Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election
Commission
Mr. Suhas R. Shirsath, Advocate for Resp. No. 4 (ZP Beed)
Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -
State
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 10832 OF 2025
Shamrao Kondiba Salunke,
Age : 51 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Dhanora, Post Takli Kolte,
Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The State Election Commission Maharashtra State,
Mumbai. New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai.
Through its Commissioner/Secretary.
3] Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
4] District Collector,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
5] Deputy Collector, Revenue Aurangabad,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
22 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
6] Tahsildar, Phulambri,
Tq. Phulambri,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
7] Zilla Parishad,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Through Chief Executive Officer.
8] Panchayat Samiti, Phulambri,
Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad
Through its Block Development Officer.
9] Kachru Laxman Wadekar,
Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o. Padali, Tq. Phulambri,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Ravindra V. Gore, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,
Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election
Commission
Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -
State
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 10892 OF 2025
1] Sudhir s/o Sanjivan Munde
Age : 22 years, Occu. : Agri
R/o Ladewadgaon, Taluka : Kaij
District : Beed
2] Rahul s/o Gina Shinde
Age : 42 years, Occu. : Agri
R/o Ladewadgaon, Taluka : Kaij
District : Beed
3] Balaji s/o Shankar Sonawane
Age : 32 years, Occu. : Agri
R/o Ladewadgaon, Taluka : Kaij
District : Beed ...Petitioners
(Ori. Objectionist)
23 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
3] The District Collector,
Beed.
4] The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Ambejogai, District Beed
5] The Tehsildar, Kaij,
Taluka Kaij, District: Beed
6] Maharashtra State Election Commission
First Floor, New Administrative Building,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400032
Email: [email protected] ...Respondents
(Ori. Respondents)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10894 OF 2025
Ashwini w/o Dnyaneshwar Chavare
Age : 48 years, Occu. : Sarpanch
R/o. Bhatumba, Taluka : Kaij
District : Beed ...Petitioner
(Ori. Objectionist)
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
24 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
3] The District Collector,
Beed.
4] The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Ambejogai, District Beed
5] The Tehsildar, Kaij,
Taluka Kaij, District: Beed
6] Maharashtra State Election Commission
First Floor, New Administrative Building,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400032
Email: [email protected]
7] Arun s/o Nanasaheb Dhapate
Age : Major, Occu.: NIL
R/o Bhatumba, Taluka : Kaij,
District : Beed ... Respondents
(Ori. Respondents)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10895 OF 2025
Yadav s/o Ramchandra Thombre
Age : 58 years, Occu. : Agri
R/o. Undri, Taluka : Kaij
District : Beed ...Petitioner
(Ori. Objectionist)
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
3] The District Collector,
Beed.
4] The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Ambejogai, District Beed
25 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
5] The Tehsildar, Kaij,
Taluka Kaij, District: Beed
6] Maharashtra State Election Commission
First Floor, New Administrative Building,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400032
... Respondents
(Ori. Respondents)
...
Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Vikas D. Matkar & Kunal A.
Kale i/by Mr. Amol R. Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Sachindra Shetye (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini, Advocate a/w
Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election Commission
Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. Kale
Addl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-
State
...
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10 SEPTEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19 SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (PER - MANISH PITALE, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are heard finally, at the
stage of admission.
2. This bunch of writ petitions challenges final notification of
ward formation in various districts of the State of Maharashtra, in the
light of the impending local body elections to be conducted in the State.
Some of the petitions were filed at a point of time when the final
notification was yet to be issued and, therefore, upon the final
26 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
notification being issued, such petitions were amended and various
grounds of challenge have been raised in these petitions.
3. The specific grounds raised in these petitions will be dealt
with in this judgment and order, but, before proceeding to do so, it is
imperative to first refer to the question of jurisdiction available with this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with
such final notification, which necessarily calls upon this Court to
consider whether inclusion or exclusion of certain villages is justified
while laying down the boundaries of such wards / electoral divisions /
electoral colleges.
4. The Supreme Court and this Court in a number of
judgments, has referred to the relevant provisions of the Constitution of
India, concerning various steps to be taken by the concerned
authorities for conducting elections, which necessarily includes
delimitation of constituencies / electoral divisions / electoral colleges.
Various Articles of the Constitution, including Article 243-O, lay down
the limitations on the power of interference by Courts in electoral
matters, which includes questioning the validity of any law relating to
delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats made under Article
243-K of the Constitution. In fact, such a power is found in respect of
various local bodies under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India
27 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
and even Article 329(a) thereof. These Articles have come up for
consideration of the Supreme Court and this Court, on various
occasions and, therefore, it would be necessary to refer to the law laid
down therein, before considering the challenges raised in these
petitions.
5. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra
Samiti (1995) Supp (2) SCC 305, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"44. It is for the Government to decide in what manner the
panchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat area
will be delimited. It is not for the court to dictate the manner in
which the same would be done. So long as the panchayat areas
and the constituencies are delimited in conformity with the
constitutional provisions or without committing a breach thereof,
the courts cannot interfere with the same. We may, in this
connection, refer to a decision of this Court in The Hingir-
Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. and Others v. The State of Orissa and
Others [(1961) 2 SCR 537]. In this case, the petitioner-
mineowners, had among others, challenged the method
prescribed by the legislature for recovering the cess under the
Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 on the
ground that it was un-constitutional. The majority of the Bench
held that the method is a matter of convenience and, though
relevant, has to be tested in the light of other relevant
circumstances. It is not permissible to challenge the vires of a
statute solely on the ground that the method adopted for the
recovery of the impost can and generally is adopted in levying a
duty of excise.
45. What is more objectionable in the approach of the High
Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-0 of the
Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in
electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any
law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the
allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to
be made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat,
the High Court has gone into the question of the validity of the
delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats
to them. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this
Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors.
28 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
[(1967) 1 SCR 400]. In that case, a notification of the
Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had been a
general constituency was notified as reserved for the Scheduled
Castes. This was challenged on the ground that the petitioner
had a right to be a candidate for Parliament from the said
constituency which had been taken away. This Court held that
the impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation
of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution, and
that an examination of sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation
Commission Act showed that the matters therein dealt with were
not subject to the scrutiny of any court of law. There was a very
good reason for such a provision because if the orders made
under sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the result
would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an
election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the
constituencies from court to court. Although an order under
Section 8 or 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act and published
under Section 10 (1) of that Act is not part of an Act of
Parliament, its effect is the same. Section 10 (4) of that Act puts
such an order in the same position as a law made by the
Parliament itself which could only be made by it under Article
327. If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-0 in place of
Article 327 and sections 2 (kk), 11-F and 12-BB of the Act in
place of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be
obvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor
of the constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of
seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor the
Court could have entertained such challenge except on the
ground that before the delimitation, no objections were invited
and no hearing was given. Even this challenge could not have
been entertained after the notification for holding the elections
was issued. The High Court not only entertained the challenge
but has also gone into the merits of the alleged grievances
although the challenge was made after the notification for the
election was issued on 31st August, 1994."
6. In said case, the High Court had interfered with such
delimitation of constituencies, but, the Supreme Court set aside the
order of the High Court in the light of the narrow window available for
interference, in such matters.
29 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
7. In the case of Anugrah Narain Singh and another Vs.
State of U.P.; 1996 (6) SCC 303, a similar question considering scope
of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in such matters, came up for consideration. After referring to the
aforesaid bar from interference, the Supreme Court held that if
interference is allowed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
several elections will be indefinitely delayed and it will not be possible
to comply with the mandate of the Constitution, which requires fresh
elections to be held immediately upon the life of an elected body
expiring or it being dissolved.
8. In the case of Jadhav Shankar Dnyandeo Vs. Collector,
Satara; 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 109, a Division Bench of this Court, following
the dictum laid down in the case of State of U.P. V. Pradhan Sangh
Kshetra Samiti (supra), held as follows :-
"The plain reading of the above referred observations made by
the Apex Court would show that if provisions of Article 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 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 Article 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,
30 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
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 4(2)
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."
9. Thus, it was held that since the concerned authority had
invited objections, given hearing on such objections and then finalized
the notification, there was no scope for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. In the case of Punjabrao Shrihari Wadje
Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (Judgment and order dated
16.01.2017 in writ petition no. 154 of 2017 and connected Petitions), a
Division Bench of this Court followed the aforesaid position of law and
upon considering the facts of the said case, held as follows :-
"10. We have perused the reasoned orders passed by the
Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner has passed
well reasoned orders and has given reasons why in some cases he
has not accepted proposals given by the Collector and also
considered the objections of the objectors. It cannot be said that
the exercise done by the Divisional Commissioner is arbitrary.
11. Taking into consideration all these aspects and in view of the
specific bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, we are
of the view that no case is made out for interference with the orders
passed by the Divisional Commissioner."
10. In the case of Anant Baburao Golait (Gahilot) Vs. State
Election Commission of India and others (Judgment and order
dated 07.07.2022 in writ petition no. 6765 of 2022 and connected
petitions), after referring to the said position of law, laid down by the
31 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
Supreme Court and followed by this Court, a Division Bench of this
Court held as follows :-
"27. It is well known that a Court exercising plenary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to issue a writ which
would further public interest and not thwart it. What emerges,
giving due regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
State of Goa (supra), Anugrah Narain Singh (supra) and
Lakshmi Charan Sen (supra) is that an otherwise imminent
election process, therefore, need not be derailed merely
because there are certain disgruntled voices who wish to have
the wards formed in the manner they like, while dislining the
formation brought about by the State Election Commission. If
there be any genuine legal grievance which calls for being
addressed, the forum prescribed by law has to be approached.
28. Having held so, we repeat that the prayers of the writ
petitions under consideration do not reveal that a single writ
petition is intended to obtain relief for facilitating smooth
progress of the elections; on the contrary, the interim prayers in
all such writ petitions are such that grant thereof would have the
effect of postponing the elections for an indefinite period. This,
coupled with the judgment in Suresh Mahajan (supra) read with
the order in Rahul Ramesh Wagh (supra), makes it clear as
crystal that the elections to the local bodies cannot be stalled by
any order passed by this Court; even if a stalling were directed,
such order would be of no effect."
11. Considering the fact that in some of the petitions, before
this Court, the petitioners had not even raised any objection within the
stipulated period of time and, thereafter, they are seeking to challenge
the final notification, the observations made by a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Anil Ramchandra Chondhe V/s. State of
Maharashtra and others; 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2249 (Judgment
dated 13.01.2021 in writ petition (St.) no. 97619 of 2020), assume
significance. Relevant portion reads as follows :-
32 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
"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 7 th February, 2020 to 14 th 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 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 15th January, 2021, cannot be entertained. The Apex Court
in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh and another v. State of U.P.
and others 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."
12. In a recent judgment and order passed on 22.08.2025 by a
Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in the case of Shri Dilip S/o
Rambhau Jadhav and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
(Judgment and order dated 22.08.2025 in writ petition no. 4627 of
2025), again the said well settled position of law was referred to and
relied upon while dismissing the writ petition. In this judgment and
order, the Division Bench of this Court specifically referred to an order
dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
33 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
No. 19756 of 2021, directing local body elections to be held in State of
Maharashtra within 4 months from the date of the order. The relevant
observations made in the said judgment and order, read as follows :-
"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.
....
....
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,
none of the prayers in the writ petition can be entertained at this
juncture and in the present writ petition."
13. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law,
that this Court has taken up the instant petitions for consideration. It is
to be reiterated that since local body elections in the State of
Maharashtra have not been taken place for considerable period of
time, the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 19756
of 2021 (Rahul Ramesh Wagh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
34 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
others), in its order dated 06.05.2025, issued specific directions, which
are as follows :-
"5. Consequently, subject to the outcome of these proceedings and
without prejudice to the issues raised on behalf of the rival parties,
we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions to the State
of Maharashtra/State Election Commission:
(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 endeavour 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."
14. Thus, it is evident that the Supreme Court has emphasized
upon the need to hold elections in a democracy, so that local self
government, contemplated under the scheme of the Constitution, is
achieved at the earliest.
15. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that
by exercising power under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Act of 1961), the
respondent - State issued order dated 12.06.2025, laying down the
procedure for delimitation of constituencies / electoral divisions /
electoral colleges for the forthcoming elections to the Zilla Parishads
35 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
and Panchayat Samitis. This order lays down the procedure, which led
to issuance of final notification. The timeline for taking various steps as
per the said order dated 12.06.2025, was as follows :-
Sr. Details Statutory
No. Timeline
1. Draft Electoral Divisions/Colleges published by District Collectors 14.07.2025
2. Last date for filing objections/suggestions 21.07.2025
3. Reports / Opinions by Collectors to be submitted to Divisional 28.07.2025
Commissioners.
4. Hearings to be completed by Divisional Commissioners and orders 11.08.2025
are to be passed.
5. Publication of Final Electoral Divisions/Colleges is to be published 18.08.2025
in Gazatte by District Collector.
16. It is undisputed that the last date for publication of final
notification of electoral division / electoral colleges, was extended to
22.08.2025. There is also no dispute about the fact that the persons
who had raised objections to the draft notification, were given hearing,
and, thereafter, the final notification was published in the official gazette
by the respondent - District Collector.
17. A perusal of the Government Order dated 12.06.2025
shows that the last Census i.e. Census of 2011, has been taken as the
basis for taking decisions on the matter of deciding boundaries and
delimitation of final electoral divisions / electoral colleges. It is
specified that the boundaries and ward formations of electoral divisions
/ electoral colleges undertaken in the year 2017, would be a relevant
consideration and further that the concerned authorities while taking
36 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
such decision, would start from the North of the District, moving to the
North-East, then to the East and, thereafter, to the West and finally to
the South in a zig-zag manner for determining the boundaries. It was
also specified that the geographical contiguity as well as the natural
boundaries such as rivers, nallahs, mountains, flyovers etc. would be a
relevant consideration. It was also specified in the Government order
that Gram Panchayats ought not to be divided as far as possible.
Other relevant considerations were also provided, including the
convenience of the voters. The Government order further provided the
manner in which the draft notification would be publicized and,
thereupon, objections would be invited, heard and final notification
would be issued.
18. Having perused the Government order dated 12.06.2025,
we are of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to make
out a case to hold that the respondents have exercised the power in an
arbitrary or malicious manner. In fact, the Government order dated
12.06.2025 and the timelines, as also the procedure prescribed therein,
are found to be in consonance with the Constitutional scheme.
19. In fact, the petitioners have not seriously challenged the
Government order dated 12.06.2025, but most of the grounds raised in
these petitions allege violation of the procedure prescribed in the said
37 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
Government order itself, indicating arbitrariness on the part of the
respondents while issuing the final notification.
20. In the light of the above mentioned position of law, with
regard to the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, we find that there is a very narrow scope for interference and
that the petitioners have an extremely uphill task to satisfy this Court
that in an individual case, interference is warranted. This Court,
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
would be loath to lightly interfere with the final notification, in the light of
the Constitutional bar to interference in such matters.
21. As noted herein-above, since local body elections in
Maharashtra have not been conducted for a considerable period of
time, the Supreme Court, in the above mentioned order dated
06.05.2025, passed in the case of Rahul Ramesh Wagh Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
19756 of 2021), has emphasized upon the need to conduct such
elections at the earliest. In fact, the said order indicates that such
elections be conducted within 4 months of the date of the order.
Therefore, unless the petitioners are able to make out a compelling
case for interference; this Court would not be inclined to show any
38 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
indulgence, as it would amount to derailing the process of elections to
local bodies in the State of Maharashtra.
22. It is in this backdrop, that we are taking up individual cases
for consideration.
[I]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10237 OF 2025 WITH CA/8823/2025
23. Mr. Bhargav B. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had raised
various objections to the manner in which the draft notification
determined the electoral divisions / electoral colleges for Taluka -
Kalamnuri, District - Hingoli.
24. It was submitted that in the present case, the petitioner
had submitted his objection even before the draft notification was
prepared. After the final notification was issued, the petition was
amended to raise further grounds of challenge. It was submitted that
while some of the objections were partly accepted, the others were
rejected in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. In this regard,
reference was made to the map of the said Taluka and it was sought to
be demonstrated that the respondents had not even followed the
stipulations in the Government order dated 12.06.2025, demonstrating
arbitrariness.
39 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
25. On the other hand, Mr. A.B. Girase, learned Government
Pleader invited attention of this Court to the manner in which the
objections raised by the petitioner were dealt with by the respondent -
Divisional Commissioner, on the basis of inputs given by the Deputy
Collector / Tahsildar as well as the Collector of the District. It was
submitted that proper hearing was given and for the reasons recorded
in writing, the objections were dealt with and the final notification was
issued. It was submitted that there was no question of any
arbitrariness or malice and, therefore, the petition deserved to be
dismissed.
26. Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - State Election Commission emphasized upon the
extremely narrow scope available in such matters and supported the
contentions on facts raised by the learned Government Pleader.
27. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also
perused the map of Taluka - Kalamnuri, District - Hingoli. The
document at Exhibit - G shows the manner in which the objections
raised by the petitioner were dealt with in detail by the respondent -
Divisional Commissioner. Proper hearing was granted and inputs
given by the Deputy Collector / Tahsildar as well as the respondent -
Collector were taken into consideration. We find that the petitioner in
40 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
this petition appears to have raised objections with regard to the
entirety of the Taluka, claiming that the stipulations in the Government
order dated 12.06.2025 were also not followed. But, the manner in
which the objections have been dealt with by the respondent -
authorities, shows that there is indeed application of mind, upon proper
hearing being granted to the petitioner and specific reasons have been
recorded for the manner in which boundaries of the electoral divisions
and electoral colleges were determined in the final notification.
28. We find that the zig-zag pattern contemplated in
Government order dated 12.06.2025 was broadly followed by the
authorities and the other considerations with regard to natural
boundaries and balancing population while maintaining 10% margin
were applied while determining the boundaries. In writ jurisdiction, this
Court cannot tinker with inclusion or exclusion of a village while
finalizing electoral divisions and electoral colleges. It is also to be
noted that since number of electoral divisions and electoral colleges in
certain instances were increased, there was bound to be change as
compared to such electoral divisions and electoral colleges determined
on earlier occasions. No case is made out for interference in this
petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.
41 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
[ II ]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10362 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10366 OF 2025
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 10397 OF 2025
29. In these petitions, the petitioners had not raised any
objection to the draft notification issued by the respondent - authorities.
It is their case, that since they were satisfied with the draft notification,
there was no occasion for them to raise objection. The grievance of
the petitioners is that objections raised by some of the private
respondents were illegally and illogically accepted, prompting the
petitioners to file the instant petitions. We are of the opinion that if
petitions filed by such petitioners are entertained, it would be an
endless exercise as, either the petitioners or the respondents or even
third parties would have series of grievances and objections with
regard to finalization of the boundaries of electoral divisions / electoral
colleges. If such petitions are routinely entertained, it would lead to
derailing the electoral process, which cannot be countenanced in the
light of the position clarified by the Supreme Court and this Court in the
afore-mentioned judgments. Therefore, the scope for entertaining and
considering such petitions is even narrower.
42 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
30. Nonetheless, we heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners in these petitions. The principal contention raised in these
petitions, was that objections raised by the private respondents were
wrongly accepted, as a consequence of which the boundaries of
electoral divisions / electoral colleges in Taluka Jamkhed, District -
Ahilyanagar were arbitrarily changed, to the detriment of the petitioners
and other voters. It was submitted that such boundaries were
deliberately changed to benefit certain political parties, demonstrating
malice and arbitrariness. It was submitted that the petitioners and
other voters of specified villages would suffer inconvenience if the final
notification as regards said Taluka - Jamkhed, District - Ahilyanagar, is
not interfered with.
31. On the other hand Mr. A.B. Girase, learned Government
Pleader referred to the Annexure - E in writ petition no. 10362 of 2025,
as also other such documents filed in the accompanying petitions,
giving the details of the manner in which the objections were partly
accepted by taking into consideration the directions contained in
Government order dated 12.06.2025.
32. Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned counsel appearing for the
State Election Commission emphasized upon the narrow scope of
interference and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
43 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
33. We have considered the rival submissions.
34. The documents on record show that the objections raised
by the private respondents were taken into consideration, proper
hearing was granted and for reasons recorded in writing, some of the
objections were accepted, leading to determination of the boundaries
of the electoral divisions / electoral colleges, in a particular manner in
the final notification.
35. The reasons recorded in said documents show that natural
boundaries, convenience of voters, the factor regarding increase of
electoral divisions / electoral colleges and the need to ensure the
population balance, were taken into consideration while finalizing the
boundaries of the electoral divisions / electoral colleges. We are
unable to reach a finding that the final notification as regards Taluka -
Jamkhed, District - Ahilyanagar arbitrarily determined such boundaries
or that the said exercise was undertaken maliciously, in order to benefit
certain parties.
36. In any case, as noted herein-above, the petitioners had
never raised any objection and the objections raised by the private
respondents have been logically taken into consideration in the light of
the procedure specified in Government order dated 12.06.2025.
44 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
Therefore, in the light of the limited scope available for this Court in
such matters, we are not inclined to interfere with the final notification
as regards the said Taluka.
37. In the light of above, the aforesaid petitions are dismissed.
[ III ]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10408 OF 2025
38. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the final
notification in respect of Taluka - Mahur, District - Nanded, claiming that
village Anjankhed has been arbitrarily deleted from electoral division
Wai Bazar and it has been wrongly included in the electoral division -
Wanola.
39. Mr. Prashant Katneshwarkar, learned senior counsel
appearing for said petitioner, referred to the map of the said taluka and
sought to impress upon this Court that the said change of boundaries
made in the final notification was with the ulterior motive of benefitting
certain political parties. It was emphasized that the map would show
that village Rui was correctly included earlier in the Wanola electoral
division and Anjankhed village was properly included in Wai Bazar
electoral division, but the situation was maliciously and arbitrarily
reversed. The distance between the said villages and the electoral
45 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
division in which they were included, was emphasized upon to show
that great inconvenience would be caused to the voters like the
petitioners in the said Taluka.
40. On the other hand, Mr. Girase, learned Government
Pleader invited attention of this Court to the reply affidavit and
particularly, the contents of document recording the reasons why
certain objections raised in respect of the said Taluka were considered
and determined. It was submitted that a perusal of the reasons
recorded in the said document demonstrated that the Government
order dated 12.06.2025 was scrupulously followed and that there was
no scope for interference.
41. Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned counsel appearing for the
State Election Commission emphasized upon the narrow scope of
interference and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
42. We have perused the documents on record, including the
map of Taluka - Mahur, District - Nanded, as also the document
recording reasons why the respondent - authorities took a specific
decision with regard to the aforesaid two villages in respect of their
inclusion and exclusion in the two electoral divisions. Having perused
the same, we find that proper hearing was granted to the objectors,
objections were taken into consideration and upon referring to the
46 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
requirements of Government order dated 12.06.2025, specific
decisions were taken in the final notification while determining the
boundaries of the two electoral divisions as also the electoral colleges.
43. We find that the aspect of balancing population in the
electoral divisions was specifically taken into consideration by the
respondent - authorities. In the light of the law referred to herein-
above, this Court in writ jurisdiction, would not interfere on the question
of inclusion / exclusion of villages in electoral divisions, so long as the
reasons are recorded. The petitioners are unable to demonstrate any
malice or arbitrariness in the said exercise. It is obvious that this Court
in writ jurisdiction, will look into the procedure followed but, this Court
would not sit in appeal on merits over the decision taken by the
respondent - authorities, particularly in the light of the constitutional bar
noted herein-above.
44. Hence, the aforesaid writ petition is found to be without
any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.
[ IV ]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10565 OF 2025
45. This petition also concerns Taluka - Mahur, District -
Nanded. In this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his
47 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
objection of deleting village Rui from certain electoral colleges and
including it in electoral colleges of Wai Bazar. Objection is raised to
inclusion of village Anjankhed in Wanola electoral division. It is alleged
that the entire exercise is malicious, for the reason that it benefits a
particular political formation, to the detriment of others, apart from
causing inconvenience to the voters like the petitioners.
46. As noted herein-above, while deciding writ petition no.
10408 of 2025 concerning this very Taluka of District - Nanded, the
respondent - authorities considered the objection in detail, gave proper
hearing and, thereupon, reached a conclusion whereby the boundaries
of the two electoral divisions and the electoral colleges forming part
thereof, were determined by exercising power as per the Government
order dated 12.06.2025. The document on record shows that detailed
reasons were recorded, including the requirement of maintaining
balance of population, in the electoral divisions / electoral colleges.
47. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr. Nagargoje vehemently submitted that the entire exercise was
undertaken arbitrarily, we are in agreement with the contentions raised
on behalf of the respondent - authorities by Mr. Girase, learned
Government Pleader and we decline to interfere in the final notification
as regards Taluka - Mahur, District - Nanded.
48 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
48. The writ petition is dismissed.
[V]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10568 OF 2025,
WRIT PETITION NO. 10569 OF 2025,
WRIT PETITION NO. 10570 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 10572 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2025
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 10575 OF 2025
49. All these petitions concern objections raised with regard to
determination of boundaries in the final notification of electoral divisions
/ electoral colleges concerning Taluka - Jamkhed, District - Ahilyanagar.
50. Mr. Shaikh Ashpak Patel, learned counsel for the
petitioners in these petitions submitted that the objections raised by the
petitioners with regard to inclusion of certain villages in electoral
divisions of Sakat, Kharda and Jawala were wrongly decided when the
final notification was issued.
51. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the map and
tried to impress upon this Court that even a visual impression, would
indicate the arbitrariness of the exercise undertaken by the respondent
and grave inconvenience would be caused to the voters like the
petitioner, if the final determination of such boundaries was to be
49 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
upheld by this Court. It was submitted that the objections were not
properly heard and determined by the respondent - authorities.
52. On the other hand, Mr. Girase, learned Government
Pleader relied upon the reply affidavits filed in these petitions and he
placed particular reliance on the documents showing the recording of
reasons while dealing with the objections raised in these matters.
53. We have perused the documents recording reasons while
determining the objections raised in these matters.
54. We find that the reasons recorded while dealing with the
objections, specifically relied upon Government order dated
12.06.2025. The factors regarding zig-zag pattern to be followed, as
far as possible, populations being balanced with margin of 10%, natural
boundaries being taken into consideration were applied. Thereupon,
the notification was finalized with regard to the aforesaid Taluka -
Jamkhed in District - Ahilyanagar. Considering the narrow scope of
interference in writ jurisdiction in such matters, we are of the opinion
that the petitioners have failed to make out a case in their favour.
55. It cannot be said that the petitioners have been able to
demonstrate malice on the part of the respondent - authorities or that
proper hearing was not granted while reaching findings, thereby
50 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
demonstrating that the petitioners have not been able to convince this
Court to hold in their favour despite the Constitutional bar noted herein-
above.
56. Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned counsel appearing for the
State Election Commission emphasized upon the narrow scope of
interference and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
57. Hence, we are unable to agree with the petitioners and all
these petitions are also dismissed.
[ VI ]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10571 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9748 OF 2025
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9815 OF 2025
58 This petition raises grievance in respect of boundaries of
electoral divisions / electoral colleges in Loha and Kandhar Taluka of
District - Nanded. The petitioner is aggrieved by objections raised by
certain persons being accepted and changes being made in the
boundaries while issuing the final notification. The petitioner claims
that the draft notification was based on the boundaries that were
determined when earlier elections were conducted and there was no
reason to change the boundaries. According to the petitioner,
51 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
objections were wrongly dealt with and hence, the final notification in
respect of the aforesaid 2 Talukas of District - Nanded need
interference.
59. Applicants in the Civil Application seek intervention as they
were the persons who had raised the objections, leading to the
boundaries being determined and changed in the final notification.
60. The grounds raised in the present petition show that
according to the petitioner, certain villages ought not have been
included and other villages ought to have been excluded from Loha
and Kandhar Talukas of District - Nanded. It is alleged that such an
exercise is not just arbitrary, but, it is undertaken with the intention of
politically benefiting certain parties. Since the petitioner intends to
contest election, this is operating to his detriment.
61. The applicants in the intervention application submit that
the petitioner has deliberately not made them parties, in order to snatch
orders from this Court behind their back.
62. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner referred to the map of the two Talukas and he submitted that
the objections were wrongly accepted and even the procedure
contemplated in the Government order dated 12.06.2025 was not
52 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
scrupulously followed by the authorities. Allegations of malice,
arbitrariness were vehemently raised on behalf of the petitioners and it
was submitted that even if the narrow scope of interference indicated in
the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court was to be applied,
this was a fit case for interference with the final notification concerning
the aforesaid two Talukas of District - Nanded.
63. Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleader vehemently
opposed the said contentions. He referred to and relied upon the
documents recording reasons for disposing of the objections
concerning the said two Talukas and he submitted that no interference
is warranted in the present case.
64. We have considered the rival submissions. Upon perusing
the maps of the two talukas, we find that the objections raised to the
draft notification, were dealt with by the respondent - authorities after
giving a proper hearing to the objectors. The authorities found that
upon applying Government order dated 12.06.2025 while considering
the said objections, the boundaries needed to be changed in a
particular manner, so as to maintain the balance of population within
the 10% limit and also to properly ensure that geographical contiguity
was applied, while determining electoral divisions / electoral colleges
for the convenience of the population.
53 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
65. Having perused the documents on record, we find that the
procedure followed by the respondent - authorities cannot be said to
be arbitrary. Inclusion / exclusion of villages was undertaken on the
basis of the factors indicated in the Government order dated12.06.2025
and, hence, we find that the petitioners have failed to make out a case
to overcome the Constitutional bar, for this Court to exercise writ
jurisdiction in the matter.
66. The writ petitions are found to be without any merit and,
accordingly, they are dismissed and civil applications are disposed of.
[ VII ]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10806 OF 2025
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 10818 OF 2025
67. These two petitions concern the determination of
boundaries of electoral divisions / electoral colleges as regards Taluka
- Degloor, District - Nanded.
68. Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in these petitions submitted that the arbitrariness of the
respondent - authorities is writ large insofar as the said Taluka -
Degloor, District - Nanded is concerned. It was submitted that the
guidelines contained in Government order dated 12.06.2025 have been
54 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
flagrantly violated by the authorities. It was vehemently submitted that
village Yergi has been literally cut-off from the electoral division of
Markhed in which it was previously included and it has been artificially
included in the electoral division - Karadkhed by the respondent -
authorities. It was emphasized that the voters in village Yergi will have
to cross over into the State of Telangana and then come back into the
State of Maharashtra. It has been arbitrarily included in the electoral
division - Karadkhed of the said Taluka. It was further submitted that
village Gawandgaon, although being in close proximity of Karadkhed,
has been wrongly included in electoral division - Markhed, although it
is at a considerable distance from Markhed. It was submitted that
during earlier elections, these villages were correctly included in their
respective electoral divisions and the re-determination of the
boundaries as a whole, is arbitrary and even malicious.
69. In response, Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleader
submitted that the distance between village Yergi and Karadkhed was
taken into consideration and the proximity of the said village to the
Valag electoral college, as also the factor of population ratio was taken
into consideration while shifting Yergi into Karadkhed electoral division.
The aspect of population ratio was emphasized upon, while justifying
the inclusion of Gawandgaon in Markhed electoral division. Attention of
this Court was invited to the reasons recorded by the respondent -
55 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
authorities while disposing of the objection and determining the
boundaries of the electoral division.
70. This Court has perused the map of Taluka - Degloor,
District - Nanded. It has a peculiar shape and, therefore, the zig-zag
pattern to be followed as per Government order dated 12.06.2025
necessitated certain steps to be taken by the respondent - authorities.
The reasons recorded in the document disposing of the objections is
also emphasized upon by the learned Government Pleader. Reply
affidavits show that proper hearing was granted to the objectors and
thereupon, the inclusion and exclusion of villages took place.
71. We find that reasons have been recorded by the
respondent - authorities after considering the objections and applying
the factors specified in the Government order dated 12.06.2025, which
included the maintenance of population ratio with 10% margin,
availability of State highway for residents of village Yergi and other
such factor being taken into consideration while finalizing the
boundaries of the electoral divisions / electoral colleges.
72. In view of the narrow scope available for this Court to
interfere in such matters, we are unable to agree with the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners that the final notification in respect
56 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
of Taluka - Degloor, District - Nanded, needs any interference. The
writ petition is dismissed.
[ VIII ]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10814 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 10893 OF 2025
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 10892 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 10894 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 10895 OF 2025
73. All these petitions concern Taluka - Kaij, District Beed.
74. The petitioner in writ petition no. 10814 of 2025 is
aggrieved due to rejection of his objection regarding deletion of village
Bhatumba from Yusuf Wadgaon electoral division and its inclusion in
the Hol electoral division. The petitioner in writ petition no. 10893 of
2025 is aggrieved by rejection of his objection for deletion of village
Ladewadgaon from Hol electoral division and its inclusion in Adas
electoral division of Taluka - Kaij, District - Beed.
75. The petitioners in writ petition no. 10892 of 2025 were
aggrieved by inclusion of village Ladewadgaon in Hol electoral division
and claimed that it ought to be brought back into the Adas electoral
division.
57 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
76. The petitioner in writ petition no. 10894 of 2025 raised an
objection, seeking inclusion of village Bhatumba in Yusuf Wadgaon
electoral division and instead claimed that the same ought to be placed
in Hol electoral division.
77. Petitioner in writ petition no. 10895 of 2025 is aggrieved by
inclusion of village Undri in Adas electoral division and instead claimed
that the said village should be included in Tambwas electoral college of
the said electoral division.
78. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in writ petition no. 10814 of 2025 and writ petition no. 10893
of 2025, as also learned senior counsel Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh,
appearing for the petitioners in writ petition nos. 10892 of 2025, 10894
of 2025 and 10895 of 2025 vehemently submitted that all the relevant
guidelines contained in Government order dated 12.06.2025 were
blatantly violated by the respondent - authorities while issuing the final
notification with regard to Taluka - Kaij, District - Beed.
79. It was submitted that the specific guidelines pertaining to
natural boundaries for maintaining population balance and others were
violated, only with a view to benefit certain political formations. In any
case, it was submitted that such villages, as referred to herein-above,
58 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
were earlier correctly included in their respective electoral divisions /
electoral colleges and that the boundaries were unnecessarily
changed, thereby disturbing the whole balance of the said Taluka. It
was submitted that specific boundaries such as highways etc. were
completely ignored in a most arbitrary manner while finalizing the
boundaries of electoral divisions / electoral colleges in the said Taluka
of District - Beed.
80. On the other hand, Mr. Girase, learned Government
Pleader submitted that the zig-zag pattern contemplated in the
Government order dated 12.06.2025 was properly followed and while
doing so, it was inevitable that the boundaries would have to be re-
determined in the light of the guidelines contained in Government order
dated 12.06.2025.
81. We have considered the vehement submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners in these petitions in the light of the afore-stated
position of law, which leaves a very narrow scope for this Court
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
interfere in such matters.
82. We have perused the map of Taluka - Kaij, District - Beed.
We have also perused the documents recording reasons as to why
59 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
respondent - authorities determined the boundaries of the electoral
divisions / electoral colleges in Taluka - Kaij, District - Beed while
including / excluding certain villages. We find that the zig-zag pattern,
requiring the respondent - authorities to move in a particular direction,
were by and large followed. The nitty gritty of inclusion and exclusion
of villages, appears to be based on ensuring the population balance /
ratio within the 10% margin and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
notification with regard to Taluka - Kaij, District - Beed, can be said to
be falling short of the requirements of the law.
83. The petitioners have failed to convince this Court that
Constitutional bar has been crossed, for this Court to exercise writ
jurisdiction in their favour. Hence, the petitions are dismissed.
[ IX ]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10821 OF 2025
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 10824 OF 2025
84. The petitioner in writ petition no. 10821 of 2025 is
aggrieved by rejection of his objection with regard to inclusion of village
Limbodi in Dhamangaon electoral college, in Taluka - Ashti, District -
Beed.
60 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
85. The petitioner in writ petition no. 10824 of 2025 is
aggrieved by inclusion of village Khilad in Dhanora electoral college of
Taluka - Ashti, District - Beed. It is alleged that the said decisions
taken by the respondent - authorities, while issuing the final
notification, are arbitrary and violate the guidelines contained in
Government order dated 12.06.2025 and hence, they deserve to be
interfered with.
86. Mr. N.B. Garje, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in these petitions, referred to the guidelines contained in
Government order dated 12.06.2025 and submitted that the clauses
pertaining to zig-zag pattern, natural boundaries and maintenance of
population ratio, have all been violated in these cases.
87. Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleader relied upon the
reply affidavit placed on record, as also the reasons recorded by the
authorities and the map of Taluka - Ashti, District - Beed, to justify the
final notification in respect of said taluka.
88. We have considered the submissions.
89. We have perused the detailed map appended to the final
notification concerning Taluka - Ashti, District - Beed. We find that the
zig-zag pattern, requiring the authorities to proceed from the North
61 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
direction to North-East, then to East and, thereafter, to West and to
South, has been followed by the respondents. The other guidelines
contained in Government order dated 12.06.2025 have been complied
and thereupon, with the object of maintaining population ratio within
10% margin and upon applying the requirement of natural boundaries,
certain villages have been included and excluded in the electoral
divisions of Taluka - Ashti, District - Beed.
90. Considering the narrow scope of jurisdiction in terms of the
law referred to herein-above, we do not find any substance in the
contention raised on behalf of the petitioners and hence, the petitions
are dismissed.
[X]
WRIT PETITION NO. 10832 OF 2025
91. By this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision
taken by the respondent - authorities on objections raised by the
private respondents with regard to three villages in the Taluka being
included in a particular electoral division. It was submitted that
although, the respondent - District Collector accepted the
recommendation of the Deputy Collector / Tahsildar and suggested that
the objections raised by the private respondents be rejected, the
respondent - Divisional Commissioner overruled the same and wrongly
62 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
included villages in Pal electoral division. It was submitted that the
reasoning of the Divisional Commissioner, in the present case, is
wholly unsustainable and, therefore, interference is warranted.
92. Mr. Ravindra Gore, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied upon the submissions made in the petitions, in support
of the prayers made therein.
93. On the other hand, Mr. Girase, learned Government
Pleader submitted that the objection in the present case was partly
accepted by the respondent - Divisional Commissioner for detailed
reasons recorded in the document on the record. He relied upon the
same. He further relied upon the map of Taluka - Phulambri, District -
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, placed on record, to contend that all the
relevant guidelines contained in the Government order dated
12.06.2025 were followed and, therefore, no interference is warranted.
94. We have perused the documents on record.
95. The document recording reasons by the respondent -
authorities indeed shows that the Deputy Collector / Tahsildar and the
District Collector had recommended that the objections raised by the
private respondents should be rejected, but the Divisional
Commissioner partly allowed the objections. We find that while doing
63 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
so, the Divisional Commissioner recorded detailed reasons. The
guideline regarding the population ratio was kept in mind and it was
recorded that for maintaining the same within 10% margin provided in
the guideline, the objection was being partly accepted. We also find
from the map that the other guidelines contained in Government order
dated 12.06.2025, including the guideline pertaining to zig-zag pattern,
to be followed by the respondent - authorities, was complied with and
in such a situation, the inclusion or exclusion of certain villages from
electoral division cannot be interfered with, in the light of the narrow
scope available to this Court in writ jurisdiction, as per settled law.
96. No case is made out for showing any indulgence to the
petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the
writ petition is dismissed.
97. While deciding the aforesaid writ petitions, this Court has
applied the settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court
and this Court in judgments referred to and relied upon, in detail
herein-above. It is evident that inclusion or exclusion of villages, is a
matter within the domain of the respondent - authorities, so long as
they follow the guidelines laid down in terms of the power available
under the said Act as well as the Constitution.
64 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
98. We find that the respondent - authorities in these cases
have followed the guidelines specified in the Government order dated
12.06.2025. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate
arbitrariness on the part of the respondent - authorities or malice on
their part while dynamically applying the aforesaid guidelines contained
in the Government order dated 12.06.2025. Therefore, the petitioner
has failed to make out a case for interference in the final notification
with regard to the determination of boundaries of electoral divisions /
electoral colleges in various Talukas of said Districts.
99. We are conscious of the fact that if we lightly interfere in
such matters, it would result in derailing the entire election process.
The concern of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for expeditiously
conducting the elections to the local bodies that have been languishing
in the State of Maharashtra, is evident from the above quoted portion of
the order dated 06.05.2025 passed in SLP (C) No. 19756 of 2021. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court expected the elections to be conducted within
four months. It is obvious that the said timeline could not be adhered
to and, therefore, it was all the more necessary, for this Court to hear
and dispose of these writ petitions, at the earliest, so that election
process can be proceeded further in a timely manner.
65 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD.
100. In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed.
101. Rule is discharged.
102. All pending applications are disposed of.
[ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
