Challenges to electoral delimitation and reservation of seats were dismissed. The court found the Divisional Commissioner's orders reasoned and non-arbitrary and declined interference in view of the bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 00154 of 2017
District : Nanded
Punjabrao s/o. Shrihari Wadje
Patil,
Aged : 51 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Masalga, Taluka Kandhar,
District Nanded. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commission, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. The Collector, Nanded.
.. Respondents.
...........
Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
(2)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 11214 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
1. Arun s/o. Shankar Dokhe, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Pohegaon, Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar.
2. Nitin s/o. Bhanudas Autade, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture &
Social Work,
R/o. Pohegaon,
Taluka Kopargaon,
District Ahmednagar... Petitioners.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.
4. The Collector, Ahmednagar.
.. Respondents.(3)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
...........
Mr. B.M. Dhanure, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 11218 of 2016
District : Nanded
Shivraj s/o. Bhaurao Pawar (Patil),
Age : 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Hotala, Taluka Naigaon,
District Nanded. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, through its Commissioner, New Administrative Building, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Cama Marg, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. District Collector, Nanded, District Nanded.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
(4)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 11543 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
Vitthalrao s/o. Shivram Shinde,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Rahimpur, A/P. Jorve,
Taluka Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The District Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.
4.The State Election Commission,
New Administrative Building,
Infront of Mantralaya,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400 032,
Through its Chief Election
Commissioner. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. Satyajeet S. Dixit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader,
(5)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
for respondent nos.01 to 03.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.04.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 11611 of 2016
District : Jalgaon
Arjun Ratnasingh Jadhav,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Pal, Taluka Raver,
District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Rural Development Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.
3. The Tahsildar, Raver, District Jalgaon.
4. The State Election Commission, Through its Commissioner, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.04.
...........
With
(6)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Writ Petition No. 11826 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
1. Gorakshnath s/o. Manohar Kadam, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Business,
R/o. Manjarsumba, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar.
2. Kailash s/o. Shivaji Pathare, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dongargan, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.
4. The Collector, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ...........
Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
(7)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 12016 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
Ramesh s/o. Rangnath Deshmukh,
Age : 45 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Nimblak,
Taluka & Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.
4. The Collector, Ahmednagar.
.. Respondents.
...........
Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
(8) W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group...........
With
Writ Petition No. 12155 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
Tukaram s/o. Appaji Darekar,
Age : 66 years,
Occupation : Agriculture &
Social Work,
R/o. Shrigonda,
Taluka Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.
4. The Collector, Ahmednagar.
.. Respondents.
...........
Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
(9)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
With
Writ Petition No. 12186 of 2016
District : Beed
1. Parmeshwar Zumbar Mhaske, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rakshasbhuvan, Taluka & District Beed.
2. Savitribai Yashwantrao Gade, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Household And Sarpanch of village Group Grampanchayat, village Rakshasbhuvan, Taluka & Dist. Beed. .. Petitioners. versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. The Collector, Beed.
5. Sujit s/o. Shamsundar Padule, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Aurangapur, Post Kurla, Taluka & District Beed. .. Respondents.
(10)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
...........
Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent no.05.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 12187 of 2016
District : Aurangabad
Daulat s/o. Chaganrao Shejul Patil,
Age : 41 years,
Occupation : Agriculture &
Social Work,
R/o. Anjandoh,
Taluka & District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. The Collector, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.
(11)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
...........
Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 12302 of 2016
District : Hingoli
1.Abhijeet s/o. Dileeprao Deshmukh,
Age : 36 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Dongargaon (Pul),
Taluka Kalamnuri,
District Hingoli.
2.Shivprasad s/o. Sambhaji Bengar,
Age : 44 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Sapli, Taluka Kalamnuri,
District Hingoli.
3.Shivaji s/o. Sonbarao Hake,
Age : 48 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Nimtok,
Taluka Kalamnuri,
District Hingoli.
4.Sanjay s/o. Gangadhar Dhanve,
Age : 30 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Baur,
Taluka Kalamnuri,
District Hingoli. .. Petitioners.
versus
1.The State of Maharashtra.
(12)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group |
|---|
2. The State Election Commission, |
Through its Chief Election |
Commissioner,New Administrative Bhawan,Madam Cama Road,Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,Mumbai - 400 032. |
3. The Divisional Commissioner,Aurangabad Division,Aurangabad. |
4. The Collector,Hingoli... Respondents. |
...........Mr. Milind M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate, for the petitioners. |
| Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04. |
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02............With |
Writ Petition No. 12377 of 2016District : Osmanabad |
1. Dattatraya s/o. Rangnath Jagtap,Age : 49 years,Occupation : Agriculture,R/o. Kasbe Tadawle, |
Taluka & District Osmanabad. |
2. Kondappa s/o. Sadashiv Kore,Age : 76 years,Occupation : Social Work,R/o. Kasbe Tadwle, |
Taluka & Dist. Osmanabad... Petitioners. |
versus |
1. The State of Maharashtra, |
Through Principal Secretary, |
(13)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission of Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.
4. The Collector, Osmanabad, Collector Office, Osmanabad. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 12403 of 2016
District : Beed
Shaikh Maheboob Ibrahim,
Age : 28 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Shirur (Kasar),
Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Rural Development Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.
(14)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
3. The District Collector, Beed, District Beed.
4. The State Election Commission, New Administrative Building, First Floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
5. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
6. The Chief Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Shirur Kasar, Taluka Shirur Kasar, District Beed. .. Respondents. ...........
Mr. G.K. Thigle (Naik), Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03 and 05.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.04.
Respondent no.06 served (Absent).
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 12408 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
Pravin s/o. Pandurang Kokate,
Age : 32 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Village Chichondi Patil,
Taluka Nagar,
District Ahmednagar... Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
(15)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 4. The District Collector, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ........... Mr. V.H. Dighe,, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02. ...........
With
Writ Petition No. 12510 of 2016
District : Jalgaon
1. Amol Yogiraj Thombre, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture.
2. Shivaji Bhimrao Gethe, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture.
3. Ramchandra Dalwant Khaire, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture.
4. Vinod Bhagwat Gadekar, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture.
(16)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
All R/o. Chinchkheda (Tawa),
Taluka Jamner,
District Jalgaon.
.. Petitioners.
versus
1.State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State,
Through its Commissioner,
New Administrative Building,
Opp. Mantralaya,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.
3. District Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
4. Tahsildar, Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.
5. Amit Mahesh Deshmukh, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Wakod, Taluka Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.
.. Respondents.
...........
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.01.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.02 to 04.
Respondent no.05 served (Absent).
...........
With
(17)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Writ Petition No. 12521 of 2016
District : Beed
Rajesh s/o. Bapurao Ghungrad,
Age : 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Nimgaon (Mayamba),
Taluka Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Through the Chief Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. The Collector, Beed.
5.Prakash Mahadeo Khedkar,
Age : 44 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Ghatshilparagaon,
Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
(18)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent no.05.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 12766 of 2016
District : Beed |
|
|---|---|
1. Prakash s/o. Dadarao Surwase, |
|
Age : 62 years, |
|
Occupation : Agriculture, |
|
R/o. Georai, Taluka Georai, |
|
District Beed. |
|
2. Shaikh Minaz Shaikh Rahim, |
|
Age : 28 years, |
|
Occupation : Agriculture, |
|
R/o. Nandapur,Taluka Georai, |
|
District Beed. |
.. Petitioners. |
versus |
|
1. The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary, |
|
Rural Development Department, |
|
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. |
|
2. The Commissioner,Aurangabad Division,Aurangabad. |
|
3. The Collector, Beed,District Beed. |
|
4. The Tahsildar,Tahsil Office, Georai, |
|
Taluka Georai,District Beed. |
|
5. The State Election Commission,State of Maharashtra. |
.. Respondents. |
...........
(19)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.05.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 00038 of 2017
District : Latur
Ramesh s/o. Gunderao Mogarge,
Age : 31 years,
Occupation : Social Work &
Agriculture,
R/o. Shend, Taluka Nilanga,
District Latur. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, New Administrative Building, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Cama Road, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. The District Collector And Election Officer, For Zilla Parishad Elections, Latur, Taluka & Dist. Latur. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
(20)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 00070 of 2017
District : AurangabadSandip s/o. Tatyarao Patil, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. At Takali (Antur), Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2. The State Election Commission, New Administrative Building, First Floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai.3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.4. The District Collector, Aurangabad.5. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Through Chief Executive Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents............
Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
(21)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 00336 of 2017
District : AurangabadDr. Arun s/o. Bhimrao Rathod, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Parundi Tanda, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2. The State Election Commission, New Administrative Building, First Floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai.3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.4. The District Collector, Aurangabad.5. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Through Chief Executive Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ...........Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.
(22)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 00666 of 2017
District : Latur |
|
|---|---|
1. Virendra s/o. Tanaji Sakolkar,Age : 38 years,Occupation : Legal Practitioner,R/o. Devarjan, Taluka Udgir,District Latur. |
|
2. Anilkumar s/o. Veerbhan Pawar,Age : 47 years, |
|
Occupation : Service, |
|
R/o. Mellapur, |
|
Taluka Udgir, Dist. Latur. |
.. Petitioners. |
versus |
|
1. The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary, |
|
Rural Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. |
|
2. The State Election Commissionof Maharashtra State,new Administrative Building,Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, |
|
Cama Road, Mumbai - 400 032. |
|
3. The Divisional Commissioner,Aurangabad Division,Aurangabad. |
|
4. The District Collector |
|
And Election Officer, |
|
For Zilla Parishad Elections, |
|
Latur, Taluka & Dist. Latur. |
.. Respondents. |
...........
Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate, for the petitioners.
(23)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
CORAM : V.M. KANADE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Dictated & pronounced
in open Court.
DATE : 16TH JANUARY 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) :
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of respective petitioners. Also heard the
learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the State & its authorities and the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election
Commission.
02.In some of the petitions, Rule is already
issued. In remaining petitions, Rule and Rule is
made returnable forthwith.
03.In all these petitions, petitioners have
challenged the delimitation of zone on various
grounds. The process of delimitation has commenced.
The Collector published the proposed formation of
electoral divisions and reservation of seats. The
Collector received certain objections against the
proposed formation of electoral divisions and
reservation of seats. He submitted the proposals to
(24)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
the Divisional Commissioner along with his opinion
for taking into consideration objections raised by
various persons. The Divisional Commissioner, after
proposals were received from the Collector, passed a
detailed and final order in each individual case and
direction was given for preparation of final
delimitation plan as also declaration of reservation
of seats.
04.Under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads & Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 [For short,
hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1961"], the
Collector has to divide every district into electoral
divisions. The procedure for dividing the district
into electoral divisions is mentioned in Section 12
of the Act of 1961. Clause 2(a) reveals that
guidelines have been prepared by the State Election
Commission for the purpose of reservation of certain
seats and creation of electoral divisions.
Accordingly, pursuant to the said guidelines, the
Collector prepared plan. The provision mandates that
the Collector shall submit the proposal to the
Divisional Commissioner for approval along with the
objections, if any, raised against the said proposal
with his opinion thereon. The Divisional
Commissioner has to consider the proposals of the
Collector and by giving reasons, pass a final order.
05.Grievance of the petitioners is that
firstly, the Divisional Commissioner did not give
hearing to the petitioners. Secondly, it is
(25)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
submitted that proper reasons have not been given for
the objections which are raised. Thirdly, it is
submitted that the mandatory provision pertaining to
reservation of seats also has not been considered and
fourthly, it is submitted that the guidelines /
directions given by the State Election Commission
also have not been followed. It is submitted that
the matter be sent back to the Divisional
Commissioner with a direction to give hearing to the
petitioners, thereafter decide the proposals given by
the Collector and after giving hearing to the
petitioners who have raised objections, the
Divisional Commissioner may pass final order.
06.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing
for respective parties at length and perused the
detail affidavit in reply filed by the Divisional
Commissioner.
07.The learned Asst. Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the
petitioners cannot challenge the decision of the
Divisional Commissioner in view of the bar imposed
under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. He
also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of State ofUttar Pradesh Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra
Samiti [1995 (Supp.2) SCC 305].
08.Section 12 of the Act of 1961 lays down that
the State Election Commission has to divide every
District into electoral divisions. The State
(26)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
Election Commission has to prepare guidelines for the
purpose of manner in which the said thing is to be
done. It is not necessary to re-produce either
Section 12 or the guidelines which are prepared by
the State Election Commission. Perusal of the said
guidelines and Section 12 of the Act of 1961 clearly
reveals that this is done for administrative purposes
so that elections can be held in accordance with the
Rules and provisions by dividing the District into
electoral divisions. Individual voters or persons
who are interested in contesting elections cannot
raise objections that in a particular electoral
division, certain villages be removed and the same be
attached to some other electoral division on account
of the reason that prejudice would be caused to the
persons who are contesting the election or voters.
09. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission has rightly invited our attention to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo & another Vs. Collector, Satara and another [2010(6) Mh.L.J. 109] . The Division Bench of this Court after relying on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti (supra) , has held that in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, delimitation of Panchayat area / constituencies determined by the authorities is not open to judicial scrutiny. The Division Bench of this Court observed in para 09 of the judgment as under :-
(27)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
" Counsel for the respondent No.2 further contended that the challenge in the present petition is to the "formation of wards" in Panchayat elections. In other words petition challenges the delimitation of Panchayat area / constituencies determined by the authorities and therefore in view of provisions of Article 243-O, it is well settled that the delimitation of Panchayat area or constituencies in the said area are not open to judicial scrutiny. In order to substantiate the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti, 1995 (Supp.2) SCC 305 . The challenge can be entertained by the Court only on the ground that before delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given. It is submitted that in the present case admittedly the objections were invited. Petitioners had raised their objections and after hearing them the objections were turned down by the Collector Satara by recording reasons and therefore impugned order is sustainable in law. "
10.We have perused the reasoned orders passed
by the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional
Commissioner has passed well reasoned orders and has
given reasons why in some cases he has not accepted
proposals given by the Collector and also considered
the objections of the objectors. It cannot be said
that the exercise done by the Divisional Commissioner
is arbitrary.
(28)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group
11.Taking into consideration all these aspects
and in view of the specific bar under Article 243-O
of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that
no case is made out for interference with the orders
passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
12.In the result, petitions fail and same are
dismissed. Rule discharged. In the circumstances,
parties shall bear their own costs.
( Sangitrao S. Patil ) ( V.M. Kanade )
JUDGE JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP154.17etc
2 issues framed by the court
Could the electoral delimitation orders be interfered with despite the bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution?
Were the Divisional Commissioner's orders arbitrary or deficient in considering objections and recording reasons?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State ofUttar Pradesh Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra SamitiReferred¶318
State ofUttar Pradesh Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [1995 (Supp.2) SCC 305] · Who else cites this
Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo & another Vs. Collector, Satara and anotherFollowed¶318
Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo & another Vs. Collector, Satara and another [2010(6) Mh.L.J. 109] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Punjabrao s/o. Shrihari Wadje Patil
The State of Maharashtra
The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State
The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
The Collector, Nanded
V.M. Kanade
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court