Dismissed

Sandip Tatyarao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Jan 2017WP/70/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses writ petitions challenging the delimitation of electoral divisions for Panchayat elections. Holding that Article 243-O bars judicial review of such administrative delimitation orders, the Court found the Divisional Commissioner's reasoned orders were not arbitrary and urged rejection of challenges based on alleged procedural lapses. Petitions were dismissed with costs borne

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; petitions dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Sandip Tatyarao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Election Law | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(1)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 00154 of 2017

¶4

District : Nanded

¶5

Punjabrao s/o. Shrihari Wadje
Patil,
Aged : 51 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Masalga, Taluka Kandhar,
District Nanded. .. Petitioner.

¶6

versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai - 32.

¶8

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.

¶9

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶10

4. The Collector, Nanded.

¶11

.. Respondents.

¶12

...........

¶13

Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶15

(2)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶16

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶17

...........

¶18

With

¶19

Writ Petition No. 11214 of 2016

¶20

District : Ahmednagar

¶21

1. Arun s/o. Shankar Dokhe, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Pohegaon, Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar.

¶22

2. Nitin s/o. Bhanudas Autade, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture &

¶23

 Social Work,
R/o. Pohegaon,
Taluka Kopargaon,
District Ahmednagar... Petitioners.

¶24

versus

¶25

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶26

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.

¶27

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶28

4. The Collector, Ahmednagar.

¶29

.. Respondents.

¶30

(3)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶31

...........

¶32

Mr. B.M. Dhanure, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶33

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶34

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶35

...........

¶36

With

¶37

Writ Petition No. 11218 of 2016

¶38

District : Nanded

¶39

Shivraj s/o. Bhaurao Pawar (Patil),
Age : 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Hotala, Taluka Naigaon,
District Nanded. .. Petitioner.

¶40

versus

¶41

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶42

2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, through its Commissioner, New Administrative Building, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Cama Marg, Mumbai - 400 032.

¶43

3. District Collector, Nanded, District Nanded.

¶44

4. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶45

...........

¶46

Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶47

(4)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶48

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶49

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶50

...........

¶51

With

¶52

Writ Petition No. 11543 of 2016

¶53

District : Ahmednagar
Vitthalrao s/o. Shivram Shinde,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Rahimpur, A/P. Jorve,
Taluka Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.

¶54

versus

¶55

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶56

2. The District Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶57

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶58

4.The State Election Commission,
New Administrative Building,
Infront of Mantralaya,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400 032,
Through its Chief Election
Commissioner. .. Respondents.

¶59

...........

¶60

Mr. Satyajeet S. Dixit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader,

¶61

(5)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶62

for respondent nos.01 to 03.

¶63

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.04.

¶64

...........

¶65

With

¶66

Writ Petition No. 11611 of 2016

¶67

District : Jalgaon

¶68

Arjun Ratnasingh Jadhav,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Pal, Taluka Raver,
District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner.

¶69

versus

¶70

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Rural Development Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶71

2. The Collector, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

¶72

3. The Tahsildar, Raver, District Jalgaon.

¶73

4. The State Election Commission, Through its Commissioner, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. .. Respondents.

¶74

...........

¶75

Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶76

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03.

¶77

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.04.

¶78

...........

¶79

With

¶80

(6)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶81

Writ Petition No. 11826 of 2016

¶82

District : Ahmednagar

¶83

1. Gorakshnath s/o. Manohar Kadam, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Business,

¶84

R/o. Manjarsumba, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar.

¶85

2. Kailash s/o. Shivaji Pathare, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dongargan, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners.

¶86

versus

¶87

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶88

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.

¶89

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶90

4. The Collector, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ...........

¶91

Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶92

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶93

(7)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶94

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶95

...........

¶96

With

¶97

Writ Petition No. 12016 of 2016

¶98

District : Ahmednagar

¶99

Ramesh s/o. Rangnath Deshmukh,
Age : 45 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Nimblak,
Taluka & Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.

¶100

versus

¶101

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶102

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.

¶103

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶104

4. The Collector, Ahmednagar.

¶105

.. Respondents.

¶106

...........

¶107

Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶108

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶109

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶110

(8) W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶111

...........

¶112

With

¶113

Writ Petition No. 12155 of 2016

¶114

District : Ahmednagar

¶115

Tukaram s/o. Appaji Darekar,
Age : 66 years,
Occupation : Agriculture &
 Social Work,
R/o. Shrigonda,
Taluka Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.

¶116

versus

¶117

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶118

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.

¶119

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶120

4. The Collector, Ahmednagar.

¶121

.. Respondents.

¶122

...........

¶123

Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶124

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶125

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶126

...........

¶127

(9)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶128

With

¶129

Writ Petition No. 12186 of 2016

¶130

District : Beed

¶131

1. Parmeshwar Zumbar Mhaske, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rakshasbhuvan, Taluka & District Beed.

¶132

2. Savitribai Yashwantrao Gade, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Household And Sarpanch of village Group Grampanchayat, village Rakshasbhuvan, Taluka & Dist. Beed. .. Petitioners. versus

¶133

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶134

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.

¶135

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶136

4. The Collector, Beed.

¶137

5. Sujit s/o. Shamsundar Padule, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Aurangapur, Post Kurla, Taluka & District Beed. .. Respondents.

¶138

(10)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶139

...........

¶140

Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶141

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶142

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶143

Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent no.05.

¶144

...........

¶145

With

¶146

Writ Petition No. 12187 of 2016

¶147

District : Aurangabad

¶148

Daulat s/o. Chaganrao Shejul Patil,
Age : 41 years,
Occupation : Agriculture &
 Social Work,
R/o. Anjandoh,
Taluka & District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶149

versus

¶150

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶151

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.

¶152

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶153

4. The Collector, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶154

(11)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶155

...........

¶156

Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶157

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶158

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶159

...........

¶160

With

¶161

Writ Petition No. 12302 of 2016

¶162

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.

¶163

`(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 2016` `District : 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,`

¶164

(13)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶165

Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶166

2. The State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission of Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

¶167

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶168

4. The Collector, Osmanabad, Collector Office, Osmanabad. .. Respondents.

¶169

...........

¶170

Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶171

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶172

...........

¶173

With

¶174

Writ Petition No. 12403 of 2016

¶175

District : Beed
Shaikh Maheboob Ibrahim,
Age : 28 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Shirur (Kasar),
Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed. .. Petitioner.

¶176

versus

¶177

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Rural Development Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

¶178

2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶179

(14)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶180

3. The District Collector, Beed, District Beed.

¶181

4. The State Election Commission, New Administrative Building, First Floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

¶182

5. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶183

6. The Chief Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Shirur Kasar, Taluka Shirur Kasar, District Beed. .. Respondents. ...........

¶184

Mr. G.K. Thigle (Naik), Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03 and 05.

¶185

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.04.

¶186

Respondent no.06 served (Absent).

¶187

...........

¶188

With

¶189

Writ Petition No. 12408 of 2016

¶190

District : Ahmednagar

¶191

Pravin s/o. Pandurang Kokate,
Age : 32 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Village Chichondi Patil,
Taluka Nagar,
District Ahmednagar... Petitioner.

¶192

versus

¶193

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶194

(15)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶195

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. ...........

¶196

With

¶197

Writ Petition No. 12510 of 2016

¶198

District : Jalgaon

¶199

1. Amol Yogiraj Thombre, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶200

2. Shivaji Bhimrao Gethe, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶201

3. Ramchandra Dalwant Khaire, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶202

4. Vinod Bhagwat Gadekar, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶203

(16)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶204

All R/o. Chinchkheda (Tawa),
Taluka Jamner,
District Jalgaon.

¶205

.. Petitioners.

¶206

versus

¶207

1.State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State,
Through its Commissioner,
New Administrative Building,
Opp. Mantralaya,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 32.

¶208

2. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶209

3. District Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶210

4. Tahsildar, Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶211

5. Amit Mahesh Deshmukh, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Wakod, Taluka Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶212

.. Respondents.

¶213

...........

¶214

Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶215

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.01.

¶216

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.02 to 04.

¶217

Respondent no.05 served (Absent).

¶218

...........

¶219

With

¶220

(17)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶221

Writ Petition No. 12521 of 2016

¶222

District : Beed

¶223

Rajesh s/o. Bapurao Ghungrad,
Age : 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Nimgaon (Mayamba),
Taluka Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed. .. Petitioner.

¶224

versus

¶225

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶226

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.

¶227

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶228

4. The Collector, Beed.

¶229

5.Prakash Mahadeo Khedkar,
Age : 44 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Ghatshilparagaon,
Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed. .. Respondents.

¶230

...........

¶231

Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶232

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶233

(18)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶234

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶235

Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent no.05.

¶236

...........

¶237

With

¶238

Writ Petition No. 12766 of 2016

¶239

	`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.`

¶240

...........

¶241

(19)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶242

Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶243

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 04.

¶244

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.05.

¶245

...........

¶246

With

¶247

Writ Petition No. 00038 of 2017

¶248

District : Latur

¶249

Ramesh s/o. Gunderao Mogarge,
Age : 31 years,
Occupation : Social Work &
 Agriculture,
R/o. Shend, Taluka Nilanga,
District Latur. .. Petitioner.

¶250

versus

¶251

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶252

2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, New Administrative Building, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Cama Road, Mumbai - 400 032.

¶253

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶254

4. The District Collector And Election Officer, For Zilla Parishad Elections, Latur, Taluka & Dist. Latur. .. Respondents.

¶255

...........

¶256

Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶257

(20)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶258

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶259

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶260

...........

¶261

With

¶262

Writ Petition No. 00070 of 2017

¶263

District : Aurangabad

¶264

Sandip s/o. Tatyarao Patil, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. At Takali (Antur), Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus

¶265

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶266

2. The State Election Commission, New Administrative Building, First Floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶267

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶268

4. The District Collector, Aurangabad.

¶269

5. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Through Chief Executive Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶270

...........

¶271

Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶272

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶273

(21)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶274

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶275

...........

¶276

With

¶277

Writ Petition No. 00336 of 2017

¶278

District : Aurangabad

¶279

Dr. Arun s/o. Bhimrao Rathod, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Parundi Tanda, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus

¶280

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶281

2. The State Election Commission, New Administrative Building, First Floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶282

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶283

4. The District Collector, Aurangabad.

¶284

5. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Through Chief Executive Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ...........

¶285

Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶286

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04.

¶287

(22)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶288

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶289

...........

¶290

With

¶291

Writ Petition No. 00666 of 2017

¶292

	`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 Commission` `of 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.`

¶293

...........

¶294

Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶295

(23)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶296

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03 and 04

¶297

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶298

...........

¶299

CORAM : V.M. KANADE &

¶300

 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶301

 Dictated & pronounced
 in open Court.

¶302

DATE : 16TH JANUARY 2017

¶303

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) :

¶304

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.

¶305

02.In some of the petitions, Rule is already
issued. In remaining petitions, Rule and Rule is
made returnable forthwith.

¶306

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

¶307

(24)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶308

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.

¶309

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.

¶310

05.Grievance of the petitioners is that
firstly, the Divisional Commissioner did not give
hearing to the petitioners. Secondly, it is

¶311

(25)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶312

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.

¶313

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.

¶314

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].

¶315

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

¶316

(26)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶317

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.

¶318

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 :-

¶319

(27)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶320

" 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. "

¶321

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.

¶322

(28)W.P. No. 00154 OF 2017 & Group

¶323

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.

¶324

12.In the result, petitions fail and same are
dismissed. Rule discharged. In the circumstances,
parties shall bear their own costs.

¶325

( Sangitrao S. Patil ) ( V.M. Kanade )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶326

...........

¶327

puranik / WP154.17etc

Sandip Tatyarao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Tatyarao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyanoba Tulshiram Jadhav Vs Pandurang Rajaram Hiramane and Others

Safa Education Society Vazirabad Nanded through Its Secretary Siddi Ateeq Ahmed Siddi Ismail Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vidynath Urban Co-Operative Bank. Vs the State of Maharsahtra and Others.

Arun Bhimrao Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rahul Damodhar Karkhele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashwini Kisanrao Bhosale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thro Principal Secretary and Others