1 wp5253.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5253 OF 2010 Mahadeo Ganpat Mohite ..Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye for Respondent No.5. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 We have heard Mr. Gavnekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shetye appears for respondent No.5 and Mrs. Thakur, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The grievance in this petition is mainly about the re-alignment of wards in the ensuing election of respondent No.4 Village Panchayat scheduled to be held in October, November 2010. The Panchayat has 5 wards with 13 seats and in the last election held in 2005, the number of seats in each ward was as under: 2 wp5253.10.sxw Ward No. No. of Seats. 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 2 3. It appears that respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the instructions of respondent No. 5 have re-aligned 5 wards as per the Notification issued by respondent No.5 on 22nd December, 2009 and as per the said Notification in the elections to be held in 2010, 2015 and 2020 the rotation of number of seats in each of the wards will be as under: No. of Ward Seats in 2010 Seats in 2015 Seats in 2020 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 5 2 3 3 4. The affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Vishwanath Narayan Vetkoli, Tahasildar, Roha, District Raigad refers to the scheme of Rule 3 and more particularly sub Rule (5) of the Rule of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Division into Words and Reservations of seats for Women, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1966. 5. We have perused the scheme of Rule 3 and it does contemplate shifting the number of seats from each word in rotation for each election. 3 wp5253.10.sxw However, while doing the re-alignment the geographical location of the seats to be shifted in the concerned Constituency is required to be taken into consideration as far as practicable. The petitioner had annexed the pre- alignment and post-alignment maps of the 5 wards and we are satisfied that there is no breach of the scheme of Rule 3 of the Division of Wards Rules by the Notification dated 22nd December 2009, so far as the petitioner's village is concerned i.e. respondent No.4. 6. Hence, this petition must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)