1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2010 Hari S/o Vishwanath Garad .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, and others .. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 09TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : 01. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the proposed election to the post of sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Krishnapur, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad and also prays for issuing a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3/District Collector, Aurangabad, to hold the election of the 2 member from Ward No. 2 of Gram Panchayat, Krishnapur, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad. 02. It appears that, the elections of the Gram Panchayat, Krishnapur, were held on 19.11.2007 wherein one Smt. Surekha Vijay Jadhav was elected as member and subsequently elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Krishnapur. On 01.04.2010 Smt. Surekha Vijay Jadhav, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Krishnapur resigned from the post of Sarpanch as well as a member. Her resignation came to be accepted and the post held by Smt. Surekha Vijay Jadhav became vacant and report came to be submitted regarding the vacancy of the said post. It appears that a notice dated 07.06.2010 came to be issued in respect of meeting scheduled to be held today at 2.00 p.m. for electing the sarpanch of the gram panchayat. 03. Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that since bye elections for filling in the vacancy created on account of resignation of Smt. Surekha Vijay Jadhav has not been held, the meeting convened for electing the Sarpanch is illegal. It is also urged before us that unless and until all the members of the panchayat are elected and present, no meeting could be held for electing the Sarpanch. Learned 3 Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Shri Shelke, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have urged before us that there is no statutory prohibition prohibiting the holding of the meeting for election of the sarpanch merely because of vacancy has not been filled. In respect of the relief of issuance of writ for holding of the elections, learned counsel Shri Shelke states that appropriate measures would be taken for holding the bye elections for filling in the vacant seat. 04. We have perused the relevant provisions and we find that the statute does not mandate that the vacancy created on account of resignation, etc. should be filled in within a particular time. The statute also does not prohibit convening of the meeting for electing the Sarpanch on the ground that a vacancy has not been filled in by bye elections. In that light of the matter, according to us no case is made out for interfering in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is therefore summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10