-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.35 OF 2009 Anant Kachru Ayarekar .. Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Patil A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. PC: PC: PC: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the State. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Mr.Patil, learned A.G.P. waives service for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner craves leave to delete respondent no.3. Liberty to delete respondent no.3 is granted. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of village Jambul, Taluka Kalyan, Dist.Thane. He is from reserved category, however, the proceedings under section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 were conducted by the Commissioner, Konkan Sub Division i.e. respondent no.4. The said order is appealable order under section 39(3) of the said Act and the appeal has to be decided by respondent no.2, namely, the Minister for Rural Development, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner the petitioner/appellant have preferred an appeal under section 39(3) to the Minister -2- for Rural Development, namely, respondent no.2 on 10th December, 2008 and, therefore, respondent no.2 was under obligation to decide the said appeal before the 10th January, 2009. However, no steps have been taken by respondent no.2 to decide the said appeal till today. Meanwhile, on the directions of the Collector, Thane, the Tahsildar, Kalyan has issued a notice to hold election for the post of Sarpanch of the village Jambul on 5.1.2009 and have scheduled election on 12.1.2009 and, therefore, what we find that in absence of decision on the appeal of the petitioner the elections are being conducted in respect of the said post. However, if the appeal is allowed there will be a problem because there will be two Sarpanchs in the said village. We are told that respondent no.2 has already fixed the matter for hearing on 15.1.2009 and, therefore, we pass the following order: . Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the petitioner and other parties on its own merits on 15th January, 2009. We stay the elections of Sarpanch scheduled on 12th January, 2009 as per the notice dated 5th January, 2009 issued by the Tahsildar, Kalyan and we direct that the said elections shall be taken by the Tahsildar after disposal of the appeal on merits by respondent no.2. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The writ petition is disposed of. -3- (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)