WP 9020/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9020/2010 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri A.N. Kakade, Advocate for petitioners. Shri V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent nos.5 to 8. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 21.03.2011 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard for final disposal at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 1] The petitioners, who are the members of group grampanchayat of villages Babade and Garkheda Tq.Dharangaon Dist.Jalgaon, have challenged the election to the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, which was scheduled to be held on 28.9.2010 at 2-00 p.m. on the ground that they were physically WP 9020/10 2 prevented from entering the said villages for attending the meeting of the grampanchayat and for submitting nomination papers. 2] This Court, on 28.9.2010, while granting interim order, made the following observations: “ In the normal circumstances, we would not have interfered in the election process. However, the perusal of the report, which is annexed at annexure “C”, addressed by the respondent no.2, would reveal that when the petitioners were entering the village for attending the meeting of Grampanchayat for submitting their nomination papers for the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, the villagers of Garkheda prevented them from entering in the village and also pelted stones. The electoral process cannot be permitted to be throttled by high handedness of group of villagers. A valuable right in favour of petitioners to contest the election would be taken away if the meeting which is scheduled today is permitted to proceed. In the exceptional circumstances, we are inclined to interfere in the election process. Issue notice to respondents, returnable one week. The learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondent nos.1 to 4. Hamdast granted for respondent nos.5 to 8. There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause “C”.” 3] Shri S.B. Talekar, learned for the respondent nos.5 to 8, invited our attention to the reply affidavit filed by respondent no.7 WP 9020/10 3 dated 4.10.2010 and more particularly to the paragraph no.11 thereof and submitted that the petitioners have alternative remedy u/s 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1956. He submitted that all stages of the election, except the voting, had already completed. 4] We have perused the petition, the allegations made therein and Annexure ‘C’ so also the reply affidavit filed by respondent no.7. Having regard to the controversy raised in this petition and in view of the passage of time, we deem it appropriate not to examine the questions raised in the writ petition so also in the reply affidavit filed by respondent no.7 and, in our opinion, the following order shall meet the ends of justice. We make it clear that we are not making any observations in respect of the allegations made either by the petitioners against respondent nos.5 to 8 or by them against the petitioners. a] The concerned authority shall issue WP 9020/10 4 fresh notification and conduct the election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of the said group grampanchayat as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from today. It is open to the Returning Officer to seek Police aid, if necessary, for conducting these elections peacefully and in free and fair atmosphere. We hope and trust that all members of the grampanchayat will behave responsibly and allow the Returning Officer to complete the electoral process peacefully. With these observations, Rule is disposed of accordingly. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 21.03.2011 ndk/c213114