1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2324 OF 2009 Shantaram Punjaji Date & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.S. Karnik for the Petitioners. Mr. R.M Patne, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Tushar Sonawane for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 7TH MAY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, dissolving a Grampanchayat of Village Nandur Madhameshwar, Taluka Niphad, Dist. Nashik. Elections to the Grampanchayat were held in October, 2007. Seven members of the 2 Grampanchayat had resigned on 29th September, 2008. Thereafter, on 25th November, 2008, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.2 to dissolve the Grampanchayat. Notices were accordingly issued to the petitioners and other members for dissolution of the Grampanchayat under Section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat’s Act. The respondent No.2, by his impugned order of 7th February, 2009, has after considering the objections raised by the petitioners decided to dissolve the Grampanchayat. 2. Mr. Karnik for the petitioners submits that the reasons for dissolution of the Grampanchayat must be wise and not perverse. He submits that when at-least four years of the five years term are remaining to be completed, the Authorities ought not to have dissolved the Grampanchayat and should have instead directed a by-election in respect of the seven vacancies which had arisen on account of the resignations. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of this Court in the case 3 of Shivaji Maruti Shingate and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The Division Bench of this Court was considering a case where out of 7 members of the Panchayat 4 had resigned and consequently a by-election had been ordered in respect of the four vacancies. It was submitted before the Division Bench by the petitioners in that case that under Section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, there is no power to fill in the vacancies with a by-election and the Panchayat ought to have been dissolved. The Division Bench has held that the power to dissolve the Panchayat under Section 145(1-A) is not mandatory but directory. The Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was no bar on filling any vacancies by holding elections for a particular seat rather than dissolving the entire Panchayat. 3. The facts in the present case are in fact in the reverse where the Panchayat has been dissolved rather than filling in the 4 vacancies by holding elections to those posts. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. The State has filed an affidavit-in-reply to the Petition and has disclosed that it was felt that it would be appropriate to dissolve the Grampanchayat in order to ensure stability and smooth functioning of the Grampanchayat. These reasons for dissolving the Grampanchayat are germane and cannot be discounted. The State Government has exercised its discretion in accordance with law under Section 145(1-A) and has decided to dissolve the Panchayat. 4. There is no allegation of malafides on the part of the State Government. Therefore, in my opinion, the Petition must be rejected. Accordingly, the Petition is rejected. .......