( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1803 OF 2009 1. Datta Rauba Kudke 2. Shankar Rama Mane Both r/o Kerhala, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad. 3. Smt. Sofiabi w/o Shaikh Budan, R/o Kerhala, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. D.P. Palodkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Thombre, advocate for the respondent No. 3. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 17th August, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge judgement and order rendered by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad in the proceedings of C.R. No. 39/2008. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioners filed the proceedings under section 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short, “the BVP Act”), seeking declaration that the respondent No. 3 was disqualified to continue as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Kerhala (Tq. Sillod). The learned Additional Collector noticed that required number of Gram Sabhas were called by the respondent No. 3 – Sarpanch. The Additional Collector, however, held that though some of the Gram Sabhas were not legal due to want of coram and they were not subsequently held, yet, only the Sarpanch could not be held responsible for the lapses. It was held that Gram Sevak was also equally responsible, but he was not made a party and, therefore, the application was dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 4. It is pertinent to notice that now the elections of the Village Panchayat are scheduled to be held on 5th September, 2010. It is but natural that new elected body will take over and the newly elected Sarpanch will take charge of the post within a short period. Needless to say, the question has become more academic in view of the subsequent ( 3 ) development. It prima facie appears that learned Additional Collector did not properly appreciate the fact that the Gram Sabha meetings were not conducted in accordance with Rule 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules, 1959 (for short, “the BVP Rules”). Still, however, it is fact that Gram Sevak was not made a party to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners. The question whether there was substantial compliance of section 7 is also not properly addressed by the Additional Collector. The learned Additional Collector also did not express any opinion regarding his satisfaction that the non-compliance was duly explained and justified. Obviously, the impugned order, in ordinary course, could have been set aside and the matter could be remitted to the learned Additional Collector for de novo enquiry and decision. However, since now the time-gap left is too narrow and the elections are in the offing, it would be impracticable to resort to such a course. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1803-09 ( 4 )