Disposed¶22

Shalini Ramdas Jadhav and Another v. Balaji Shankar Chafekar and Others

Natural justice – Opportunity of hearing

Bombay HC19 Nov 2025WP/5726/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench - WP 5726/2025 - Shalini Ramdas Jadhav v Balaji Shankar Chafekar - decided 19-11-2025 by Arun R. Pedneker, J. - disqualification of village panchayat member under section 40 Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act for absence from seven consecutive meetings; Divisional Commissioner's appellate order quashed for denial of opportunity of hearing despite request for eight days' time to file Vakalatnama and reply; matter remanded for fresh decision; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Divisional Commissioner quashed and set aside; matter remanded to the appellate authority for fresh decision; parties to appear before the appellate authority on 28.11.2025; R. & P. to be remitted back. ¶22

Shalini Ramdas Jadhav and Another Vs Balaji Shankar Chafekar and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority (Divisional Commissioner) passed the disqualification order without granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶15

Court's answer

The appellate court passed the disqualification order without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Since the advocate holding on behalf of the advocate for the petitioner had sought eight days' time to file reply and Vakalatnama, the concerned authority ought to have at least given one opportunity to the petitioner to put up his case.

¶20

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide afresh; parties to appear before the appellate authority on 28.11.2025; the authority may pass appropriate order without being influenced by the observations made in this order or in its earlier order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Natural justice - Opportunity of hearing - Petitioner, member of village panchayat, disqualified by the appellate authority (Divisional Commissioner) under section 40 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act for not attending seven consecutive meetings - On complaint, inquiry conducted; CEO (respondent No. 4) had held in petitioner's favour that notices of meetings were not served - Complainant's appeal before the Divisional Commissioner allowed - Before the Divisional Commissioner, notice dated 26.3.2025 fixed hearing on 27.3.2025 and appears not served; further notice dated 27.3.2025 fixed hearing on 8.4.2025; on that date the advocate holding for the petitioner's advocate sought eight days' time to file Vakalatnama and written reply; matter closed the same day and order passed against the petitioner - Held, the authority ought to have given at least one opportunity to the petitioner to put up his case; impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded to the appellate authority to decide afresh; parties to appear on 28.11.2025; authority to pass appropriate order without being influenced by observations in this order or its earlier order - Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:31836

¶2

WP 5726/25

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5726 OF 2025

¶6

SHALINI RAMDAS JADHAV AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶7

BALAJI SHANKAR CHAFEKAR AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Arora h/f. Mr. A.B. Shinde AGP for Respondent 5 : Mr. D.R. Korade

¶9

Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. U.B. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondents 2 to 4 : Ms. Shruti Zambade h/f. Ms. Y.S. Thorat

¶10

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : November 19, 2025

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner has been disqualified as member of village panchayat

¶14

by the appellate authority under section 40 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act for not attending seven consecutive meetings of the village panchayat. On complaint filed inquiry is conducted. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/respondent No. 4 held in favour of the petitioner that notices of the meetings were not served on the petitioner. Thereafter appeal was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, which came to be allowed and thus, the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

In this case detail adjudication is not necessary as this Court for the facts noted below is of the view that the appellate court has passed order without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is seen that the notice dated 26.3.2025 is issued by the Divisional Commissioner to the petitioner in which the petitioner was called upon to remain present on 27.3.2025 for hearing. It appears that this notice is not served as the

¶16

WP 5726/25

¶17

¶18

hearing was posted on the next day. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 27.3.2025, scheduling hearing on 8.4.2025. It is not known on which date notice is served on him. However, the proceeding of 8.4.2025 indicates that Advocate Mr. Shinde holding on behalf of the advocate for the petitioner sought time to file Vakalatnama and to written reply and asked eight days time. The matter is closed on the same day and the order is passed against the petitioner.

¶19

The learned counsel for the respondent/original complainant has strongly opposed to remit the matter as the petitioner had the opportunity to defend the matter and the same was not availed by the petitioner.

¶20

Considering that the advocate holding on behalf of the advocate for the petitioner sought time of eight days to file reply and Vakalatnama, the concerned authority ought to have atleast given one opportunity to the petitioner to put up his case. Considering the same, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to decide the same afresh. Parties to appear before the appellate authority on 28.11.2025. The concerned authority after hearing the parties may pass appropriate order without being influenced by the observations made in this order or in his earlier order.

¶21

R. & P. be remitted back.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶24

ssc/

Shalini Ramdas Jadhav and Another v. Balaji Shankar Chafekar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini Ramdas Jadhav and Another v. Balaji Shankar Chafekar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh P. Patwa and Anr. vs Bharat Jethalal Maniar

Mr. Honshang Homi Karkaria vs Mr. Anandrao Ganpatrao Kale

Zaverchand Damji Haria through Constituted Attorney Jaimin Zaverchand Haria vs Arihant Sra Chs Ltd.

Sachin Shivaji Aaher and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others

Shantilal Chandulal Borana and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Kaluram Madnure Vs Disha Kendra through Its President Pradeep Bajaji Gaikwad and Others