1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4915 OF 2008 1. Renukabai Dhondbarao Hendre } Age : 60 Years, Occ. : Sarpanch. } 2. Mohd. Isak S/o Abdul Salim Qureshi } Age : 50 Years, Occ. : Business & } Member of Village Panchayat. } 3. Suresh @ Balkrishna Subhash Wakade Age : 20 Years, Occ. : Business } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 4. Geetabai Sheshrao Hendre } Age : 40 Years, Occ. : Household } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 5. Raghunath S/o Bhaurao Barge } Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Business } and Member of Village Panchayat. } All R/o : Akhada Balapur, } Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. : Hingoli. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The Divisional Commissioner } Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. } 2. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, } Kalamnuri, Dist. : Hingoli. } 3. The Block Development Officer } Panchayat Samiti, Kalamnuri, } Dist. : Hingoli. } 4. The Village Development Officer } 2 Village Panchayat, Akhada Balapur } Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. : Hingoli. } 5. Deepak S/o Keshavrao Durge } Age : 32 Years, Occ. : Business } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 6. Ramrao Namdeo Ingole } Age : 55 Years, Occ. : Business, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 7. Anil S/o Balaji Amilkhantwar } Age : 40 Years, Occ. : Business, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 8. Sheshrao Sambhaji Bondhare } Age : 30 Years, Occ. : Business, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 9. Sanjay S/o bankatlal Warma } Age : 32 Years, Occ. : Business, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 10. Karuna W/o Dhrukumar Pandit } Age : 40 Years, Occ. : Household, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 11. Abdul Latif S/o Abdul Raheem Qureshi Age : 50 Years, Occ. : Business, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 12. Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Vazir } Age : 38 Years, Occ. : Business, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 13. Shaikh Mehernisha w/o Shaikh Sattar Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Household, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 14. Balaji S/o Baburao Bondare } Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Business, } 3 and Member of Village Panchayat. } 15. Laxmibai Vishwanath Pawar } Age : 50 Years, Occ. : Household, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } 16. Sharda Omprakash Thamke } Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Business, } and Member of Village Panchayat. } All R/o Akhada Balapur, } Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. : Hingoli. } 17. The Chief Executive Officer, } Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. H.I.Pathan & Mr. P.N. Nangare, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. N.D.Kendre , A.G.P. for State – Resp.Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. M.C.Syed , Advocate for Resp. Nos. 5 to 13 & 15. Mr. B.A.Shinde , Advocate for Resp. Nos. 3 & 17. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 20/08/2009 JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal /CR/209/2008 dated 18/7/2008, thereby confirming the Order dated 29/3/2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Hingoli in Appeal/VP/2008/A/1. 4 2. When the matter was called out, none appeared for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent as well as learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the order passed by the Additional Collector which is at EXH. D of the compilation of the Writ Petition and submitted that both the Additional Collector as well as Divisional Commissioner have held that the notice which was issued by the Sarpanch of postponing the elections for the post of Dy. Sarpanch on 12/1/2008 was illegal and further the appointment of one Shri. Deepak S/o Keshavrao Durge as Dy. Sarpanch on 12/1/2008 is also illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that since under the rules there is no provision to postpone the schedule meeting by the Sarpanch, both the authorities have correctly appreciated the fact as well as relevant rules and came to the conclusion that the notice dated 12/1/2008 issued by the petitioner, Sarpanch to postpone the meeting scheduled to elect Dy. Sarpanch dated 12/1/2008, is illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that even the meeting which was conducted on 12/1/2008, in which Shri. Deepak Keshavrao Durge was elected as a Dy. Sarpanch is also illegal because the said meeting was not presided over by the Sarpanch and, therefore, both the authorities have held against the petitioner on both occasions. Therefore, no interference is called for in Writ jurisdiction. 5 4. I have heard the learned counsel for respondents. Perused the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Collector as well as Commissioner and I am of the considered view that both the authorities by well reasoned Judgment and Order have come to the definite conclusion that the Sarpanch of the village had no power to postpone the meeting scheduled on a particular date and further the meeting which was held on 12/1/2008 in absence of the Sarpanch, who was supposed to be the Presiding Officer, is also illegal. 5. On careful perusal of the Judgment and Order impugned in this petition, it appears that both the authorities have appreciated the provisions of Gram Panchayat Act as well as Rules. Therefore, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and hence it is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of in view of disposal of main Writ Petition. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP4915.08