Disposed¶21

Sarjerao Kailas Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Apr 2026WP/2153/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acceptance of Waterman's resignation by Respondent No. 8/Gram Panchayat alleged to have been obtained under pressure and coercion by signature on blank paper; pending representations dated 25.07.2025 and 11.08.2025 to Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Erandol; statutory appeal and one-month limitation under Section 61(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act; court directs decision within two months; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Block Development Officer, Erandol, directed to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 25.07.2025 within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. ¶21

Sarjerao Kailas Patil vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Block Development Officer, Erandol, directed to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 25.07.2025 within a period of two months from the date of the judgment.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the representations dated 25.07.2025 and 11.08.2025 submitted by the Petitioner to the Block Development Officer, which are still pending decision with the authorities, should be decided within a specified period.

¶17

Court's answer

The representation submitted by the Petitioner on 25.07.2025 to the Block Development Officer is well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act and can be termed as a statutory appeal under Section 61(1) of the Act.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The court directed the Block Development Officer, Erandol, to decide the said representation within a period of two months, and the Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Sarjerao Kailas Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & others, WRIT PETITION NO. 2153 OF 2026, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, decided 2nd April 2026 (coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.). The Petitioner, employed as a Waterman, impugned the decision of Respondent No. 8 accepting his resignation tendered to the Gram Sabha, contending the resignation was obtained by Gram Panchayat members under pressure and coercion by taking his signature on blank paper. His representations dated 25.07.2025 and 11.08.2025 addressed to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Erandol, praying that the resignation not be accepted, were pending decision. The court held that under Section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act the 25.07.2025 representation is well within the prescribed one-month period of limitation and constitutes a statutory appeal, and directed the Block Development Officer, Erandol, to decide it within two months; the Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

wp2153.26.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

918 WRIT PETITION NO. 2153 OF 2026

¶5

Sarjerao Kailas Patil ….Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

…..Respondents

¶9

Mr. P. V. Tapse Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the State. Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

¶10

CORAM : SMT VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 2^nd APRIL, 2026.

¶11

PER COURT : ( PER : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)

¶12

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner. Learned Advocate

¶13

Mr. Dheple waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

¶14

Petitioner impugns the decision taken by Respondent No. 8 thereby accepting the resignation of the present Petitioner as a Waterman, tendered to the Gram Sabha. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner invited our attention to the fact that immediately on the next day i.e. on 25.07.2025 and thereafter on 11.08.2025, the Petitioner had preferred a representation before the Block

¶15

¶16

wp2153.26.odt

¶17

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Erandol, raising a grievance that the resignation was obtained by the Gram Panchayat members under pressure and coercion by taking his signature on the blank paper. He has never tendered or had any intention to tender the resignation of his employment. He, therefore, had prayed to the Block Development Officer not to accept the resignation that has been accepted by Gram Panchayat. The learned Advocate thus submits that the representations dated 25.07.2025 and 11.08.2025 are still pending decision with the authorities and same can be directed to be decided within a specified period.

¶18

We have perused the scheme under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. Section 61 of the said Act deals with the provision for appointment of servants by the Panchayat. Section 61(1) also provides for a mechanism that the order passed by the Panchayat is appealable before the Block Development Officer and the period of limitation prescribed therein is of one month from the date of communication of the order passed by the Panchayat to its servant. In the light of Section 61(1) of the Act, the representation submitted by Petitioner on 25.07.2025 to the Block Development Officer is well

¶19

3 - wp2153.26.odt

¶20

within the period of limitation and can be termed as a statutory appeal under Section 61(1) of the said Act.

¶21

Accordingly, we direct the Block Development Officer, Erandol, to decide said representation within a period of two months from today. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶22

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

dyb

Sarjerao Kailas Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarjerao Kailas Patil v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sagar Bapu Gawade vs the District Co. Operative Election Officer Ahilyanagar and Ors.

Dr K D Shendge Charitable Trust Omerga through Its President Sachin Kushaba Shendge vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretory and Ors.

Priya Bahuudeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha through Secretary and Anr. vs the Union of India through Secretory and Ors.

Vinod Shantaram Bodhare vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Shree Sant Narayangiri Maharaj Sevabhavi Sanstha through Its President S N Umate and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Rahul Panditrao Malak vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary School Education and Ors.