This writ petition challenged the ward formation process in Pathardi, alleging non-adherence to a circular mandating formation from the South-West side and ignoring objections. The single-judge bench held objections were vague and lacked evidence of prejudice, finding no case for interference.
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 wp 7958.20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7958 OF 2020
Pravin Sheshrao Khedkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Amol B. Chalak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for Respondents/State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 03RD DECEMBER, 2020.
FINAL ORDER :
. Mr. Chalak, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the respondents have not adhered to the circular dated 29.11.2019 governing the ward formation. The learned counsel submits that, the circular dated 29.11.2019 mandates that the wards should be formed starting from South-West side. The respondents herein have commenced the ward formation from East side. The same is not permissible. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner had raised an objections on 13.02.2020 pointing out large scale violations in the ward formation. The respondents have failed to consider the objections. The objections have been ignored. Though detailed objections were raised, the respondents have not considered those objections in right perspective. Because of the wrong ward formation, the influential persons have got the delimitation of
2 wp 7958.20
the wards according to their interest.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Dec. 20
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should interfere with the ward formation process when objections were deemed vague and unsubstantiated.
Whether the petitioner established prejudice due to the alleged non-adherence to the prescribed ward formation sequence.
Whether the respondents failed to consider detailed objections regarding ward delimitation and rotation policy.
Pravin Sheshrao Khedkar
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
