Disposed¶18

Bhaskar Govind Lohakare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Nov 2025WP/13340/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sarpanch disqualification; disqualification as Member of Gram Panchayat; Collector, Ahilyanagar; Gram Panchayat Dispute No. 7/2025; Gram Sabha and monthly meeting; meetings not deferred for want of quorum; sections 7 and 36 Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act; section 7 Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act; powers of Collector; ad-interim relief prayer clause B; notice returnable 8.12.2025; WP 13340/2025; Bhaskar Govind Lohakare v. State of Maharashtra; Aurangabad Bench; Arun R. Pedneker, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition admitted; notice issued to respondents returnable on 8.12.2025; learned AGP waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; ad-interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause 'B' till the next date. ¶18

Bhaskar Govind Lohakare vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Collector acted beyond his powers under sections 7 and 36 in disqualifying the petitioner both as Sarpanch and as Member of the village panchayat. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Prima facie, the Collector's disqualification of the petitioner as Sarpanch as well as member of the village panchayat is beyond the powers conferred upon the Collector; this is an interim observation with the matter left open to hearing.

¶16

Key takeaways

Prima facie, the violation of meeting rules found by the impugned order may not by itself be sufficient to disqualify the petitioner; again an interim observation pending final hearing.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Arun R. Pedneker, J.), November 10, 2025 — Writ Petition No. 13340 of 2025, Bhaskar Govind Lohakare v. The State of Maharashtra and Others: Challenge to the order dated 9.10.2025 of the Collector, Ahilyanagar in Gram Panchayat Dispute No. 7/2025, disqualifying the petitioner both as Sarpanch and as Member of the village panchayat under sections 7 and 36 of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act, on the footing that Gram Sabha/monthly meetings were held but not deferred for want of quorum. Hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Court observed prima facie that the dual disqualification (as Sarpanch as well as Member) was beyond the powers conferred upon the Collector, and that violation of meeting rules may not, by itself, be sufficient to disqualify the petitioner under section 7. Notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on 8.12.2025; the learned AGP waived service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and ad-interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause 'B' till the next date. Substantive questions left open.

¶1

WP 13340/25

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

11 WRIT PETITION NO. 13340 OF 2025

¶5

BHASKAR GOVIND LOHAKARE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M.P. Kale h/f. Mr. Muley Atul R. AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. D.R. Korde

¶8

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : November 10, 2025

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner challenges the order dated 9.10.2025 passed by the Collector, Ahilyanagar in Gram Panchayt Dispute No. 7/2025, disqualifying the petitioner as Sarpanch as well as Member of the village panchayat under sections 7 and 36 of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 7 provides for disqualification of the Sarpanch for non holding of the Gram Sabha and monthly meeting. Section 7 provides that the Sarpanch shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch/Up Sarpanch as the case may be for continuing as Sarpanch for the remainder term of the office of the memberof the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner cannot be disqualified as member of the Village Panchayat for violation of section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. The learned counsel submits that prima facie the order of the Collector on this aspect disqualifying the petitioner as Sarpanch as well as member of the village panchayat is erranous and beyond the powers conferred under sections 7 and 36. The learned counsel

¶13

WP 13340/25

¶14

¶15

submits that the impugned order made that the meetings are conducted, however, that same are not conducted in terms of section 7 i.e. the meetings are not deferred for want of quorum. The learned counsel submits that the violation of meeting rules was not sufficient to disqualify the petitioner under section 7 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

¶16

Considering the submissions of the petitioner and having perused the order, it appears that the petitioner is disqualified as Sarpanch as well as member of the village panchayat which is beyond the powers conferred upon the Collector. The impugned order holds that there is violation of the meeting rules, but prima facie that may not be sufficient to disqualify the petitioner.

¶17

Considering this aspect of the matter, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 8.12.2025. The learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶18

Till the next date, ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.

¶19

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶20

ssc/

Bhaskar Govind Lohakare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Govind Lohakare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smruti Shashikant Pednekar W/O Late Shashikant Pednekar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Comp. Auth and Dist Dy Registrar Co-Op. Soc. and Anr.

Santosh Lahu Kharade Vs Appaso Ramchandra Gaikwad and Ors.

Sudhir Haridas Bhajnawale Vs Sneha Sudhir Bhajnawale

Century Appliances Limited Thr Its Resolution Professional Abhijit Guhathakurta vs the Deputy Tehsildar Ahilyanagar and Others

Kiran Manmath Bukke and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Amol Rajendra Patil and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another