1 W.P.No4913/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4913 OF 2011. 1. Manisha W/o Nagesh Shinde, Age 27 years, Occ. Up-sarpanch, Khasgaon, R/o Khasgaon, Taluka Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad, Osmanabad. 2. Satish S/o Nana Limkar, Age 26 years, Occ.Member, Grampanchayat Khasgaon, R/o Khasgaon, Taluka Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Osmanabad, District Osmanabad. 4. The Secretary, Grampanchayat Khasgaon, Taluka Paranda, District Osmanabad. 5. Subhash S/o Bhanudas Koli, Age 45 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Khasgaon, Tq.Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad. 6. Datta S/o Pralhad Satpute, Age 52 years,Occ.Agril., 2 W.P.No4913/11 R/o Khasgaon, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad. 7. Nagnath S/o Janardhan Kashid, Age 39 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Khasgaon, Tq. Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad. 8. Kalidas S/o Namdeo Jagdale, Age 50 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Khasgaon, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad. 9. The Tahsildar, Paranda, District Osmanabad. 10. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samittee, Paranda, District Osmanabad. 11. Surekha W/o Laxman Shinde, Age 40 years, Occ.Member Grampanchayat, Khasgaon, R/o Khasgaon, Taluka Paranda, District Osmanabad. ... Respondents. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 deleted as per leave dt. 18.7.2011. ... Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 9. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 10. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 deleted. Respondent Nos.4 and 11 served. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2011. 3 W.P.No4913/11 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The Grampanchayat Khasgaon is constituted of seven members. Out of seven members, four members have tendered resignation. Thereafter, the Respondent invoking Section 145(lA) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, dissolved the said Grampanchayat vide order dated 2.4.2011. The said order is impugned in the present petition. 4. While passing the order impugned i.e. dissolving the Grampanchayat, the Commissioner has dissolved Grampanchayat only on the ground that as more than 50% of the members have resigned and their seats have become vacant, it is not desirable to hold the by-elections. Apart from the same, no reasons are stated. 4 W.P.No4913/11 5. The members of the Grampanchayat are democratically elected. The Grampanchayat is a local self-Government. The members who are elected have a right to hold the post for the period for which they are elected. No doubt, Section 145(1A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, gives power to the authority to dissolve the Panchayat in case the seats vacant are more than 50% but the said powers can not be exercised as a matter of course. While exercising the said powers, the authority is expected to consider all the pros and cons. The authority has also to consider the possibility of filling the vacant posts by election. The provisions of Section 11(2) of the said Act, indicates that the vacancies have to be filled in, so that the Panchayat is constituted and functions with members as required in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the authority has not considered this aspect at all. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Shivaji Maruti Shingate and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2007 (4) Bom.C.R.695, has also observed that the 5 W.P.No4913/11 authorities are required to consider all these aspects and that the discretion in the first instance must be exercised, so as to make the Panchayat workable and functionable. 6. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). The authorities are at liberty to take steps to take by-election as per Rules. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp491311