1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5810 OF 2010 Shankar Sitaram Kasbekar, Age: 54 years, Occu: Agriculturist, At present working as Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Mahindale, Tq. and Dist. Dhule, r/o Mahindale, Tq. & Dist.Dhule. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. AND 18 OTHERS. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.D.S.Bagul, Adv., for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent State. Mr. S.T.Shelke, Adv., for respondent no.2. Mr. N.L.Chaudhari, Adv., for respondent nos. 7, 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 16, 18. ... CORAM: P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE :6/7/2010 *** 2 PER COURT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice issued by the Returning Officer on the orders of the Tehsildar regarding holding of the elections of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahindale, district Dhule. 2. The principal challenge to the said notice on behalf of the petitioners is that the power to issue such a notice for holding of the election of Sarpanch under Section 33 and under Section 43 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act') is within the domain of the Collector and the Tehsildar is incompetent in law to issue such a notice or pass orders regarding holding of the election. Reliance in this behalf is placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sitaram s/o Bansi Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ( 1998 (3) Bom.C.R. 689). The Division Bench, in the said judgment, clearly held that the power to fix the date of election of Sarpanch is within the province of the Collector alone and neither the Tehsildar nor the Returning Officer is empowered in law to fix the date of election. 3. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, learned A.G.P., on 3 behalf of respondent, has invited our attention to a document dt.15th March, 1963, by which the Collector of Dhule, in exercise of the powers under Sub-section 4 of Section 182 of the Act has delegated the powers under Section 33 (1) and (2) and Section 43 (1) and (2) of the Act to all the Mamlatdars in the district, within their jurisdiction. 4. Section 182(4) of the Act reads thus: "182 (4) : Subject to the general or special orders of the State Government, the Commissioner or Collector may delegate to an officer not below the rank of Mamlatdar, Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar or Mahalkari, powers exercised by the Commissioner, or as the case may be, the Collector under this Act. 5. The Statute, therefore, empowers the Collector to delegate his powers to an officer not below the rank of Mamlatdar, Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar or Mahalkari in respect of the powers exercised by the Commissioner or the Collector, under the Act. Thus, the Statute permits such delegation of power and a photo copy of the instrument is placed before us by which the aforesaid powers have been delegated. 4 6. In the light of the delegation of powers to the Mamlatdar, the challenge in the writ petition fails and this writ petition, accordingly, is summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. (N.D.DESHPANDE) (P.V.HARDAS) JUDGE JUDGE ... agp/5810-10wp