Disposed¶24

Ukha Walmik Sonawane v. the Chief Executive Officer Zill Parishad, Jalgaon and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2026WP/4451/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Writ Petition No.4451 of 2026 (decided 27.04.2026; Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.). Keywords: Gramsevak reinstatement; Zilla Parishad Jalgaon; Chief Executive Officer; Grampanchayat Ghodegaon; Sarpanch acting as Administrator; locus standi of third person to implement reinstatement order; refusal to hand over charge; Discipline and Appeal Rules; representation dated 15.04.2026; petition disposed with direction to CEO to decide representation within two weeks. No precedent cited; no monetary relief.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.1 (Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon) to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.04.2026 within a period of two weeks. ¶24

Ukha Walmik Sonawane vs the Chief Executive Officer Zill Parishad, Jalgaon and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent no.1 (Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon) to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.04.2026 within a period of two weeks.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, approaching as Administrator of Grampanchayat Ghodegaon (former Sarpanch), is an appropriate person to seek implementation of the reinstatement order dated 23.01.2026 passed by respondent no.1, and to initiate action against respondent no.3 for withholding charge. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The petitioner is not an appropriate person to seek implementation of the reinstatement order dated 23.01.2026; once passed, the reinstatement order takes effect as per law and it is the right of the reinstated person (not a third party) to seek its implementation.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

As Administrator of the Grampanchayat, the petitioner's interest is in obtaining a Gramsevak for the Grampanchayat, not any particular Gramsevak.

¶22

Key takeaways

Respondent no.1, being the appropriate authority, should provide a Gramsevak to Grampanchayat, Ghodegaon; the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.04.2026 within two weeks.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed. The petitioner, former Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Ghodegaon now acting as its Administrator pursuant to a Government notification (elections not held after his 2021-2026 term), sought a writ of certiorari to compel respondent nos.1 and 2 to implement the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon's order dated 23.01.2026 reinstating Suresh Supadu Rokde as Gramsevak, and a direction for departmental inquiry against respondent no.3 (the subsequently appointed Gramsevak) who refused to hand over charge. Held: the petition suffered from defects in format and prayer clauses; the petitioner, in his capacity as Administrator, is not an appropriate person to seek implementation of the reinstatement order - that right belongs to the reinstated person, the petitioner being a third person; as Administrator he is interested in getting a Gramsevak, not a particular Gramsevak. Nevertheless, since respondent no.1 is the appropriate authority to provide a Gramsevak to the Grampanchayat, the Court disposed of the petition directing respondent no.1 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.04.2026 within two weeks.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:19519-DB

¶2

3-SR18.WP.4451.2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4451 OF 2026

¶5

Ukha s/o. Walmik Sonawane, Age : 30 Years, Occ. Agri., r/o. Ghodegaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and others. ..Respondents

¶8

Mr.Anuj. A. Fulfagar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.R.Dheple, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : APRIL 27, 2026

¶10

ORDER :-

¶11

Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶12

A) This Hon'ble Court by issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order and direction in like nature, be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to implement the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon for re-instatement of Gramsevak at Village Ghodegaon.

¶13

B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in like nature and initiate departmental inquiry against the respondent No.3 for willful disobedience of

¶14

¶15

3-SR18.WP.4451

¶16

the order passed by the Superior Officer i.e. Respondent No.1 and 2.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Dheple waives notice for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶18

The petitioner submits that he was elected as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Ghodegaon, in 2021 and the term was over in 2026. However, when the elections were not conducted, Government of Maharashtra issued a notification stating that the earlier Sarpanch should act as an Administrator over the Grampanchayat to which he had presided as Sarpanch. Now, the petitioner is acting as Administrator to the said Grampanchayat.

¶19

The petitioner further states that the respondent no.1 had issued an order dated 23.01.2026 for reinstatement of one Suresh Supadu Rokde as Gramsevak. However, the respondent no.3, who was subsequently appointed as Gramsevak, had not handed over the charge to Suresh Rokde. Therefore, the respondent no.2 had made communications and even had directed respondent no.3 to hand over the charge to Suresh Rokde. Respondent no.3 is reluctant to hand over the charge. According to the petitioner, the affairs of the Grampanchayat cannot function without a Gramsevak and when the documents of the Grampanchayat have not been

¶20

3 3-SR18.WP.4451

¶21

handed over by the respondent on.3, it is even difficult for the petitioner to function as Administrator. Therefore, he gave communication to respondent no.1 on 15.04.2026. A copy of the same was also given to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 had then issued notice on 17.03.2026 to respondent no.3 for taking action under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. According to the petitioner, there is no response from respondent no.3.

¶22

It appears that the petition is lacking in its format as well as in the prayer clauses. In the title, it has not been made clear that the petitioner is approaching this court in the capacity as an Administrator. Further, the petitioner cannot be said to be an appropriate person who can seek implementation of the order dated 23.01.2026 against the respondent nos.1 and 2. Though the reinstatement order has been passed, it would take its effect as per law and it would have been the right of the reinstated person to seek implementation of the order. The petitioner being the third person cannot seek its implementation. Being the Administrator, the petitioner would be interested in getting a Gramsevak and not a particular Gramsevak. In spite of these defects, the petitioner put grievance before the respondent no.1 by representation dated 15.04.2026. The respondent no.1 being the appropriate authority

¶23

4 3-SR18.WP.4451

¶24

should provide a Gramsevak to the Grampanchayat, Ghodegaon. We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Petition by directing respondent no.1 to decide the said representation dated 15.04.2026 within a period of two weeks from today.

¶25

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] [ SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]

¶26

KBP

Ukha Walmik Sonawane v. the Chief Executive Officer Zill Parishad, Jalgaon and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ukha Walmik Sonawane v. the Chief Executive Officer Zill Parishad, Jalgaon and Ors.

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

Dhanaji Sahebrao Chobe and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.

Ambika Sevabhavi Sanstha Old Autha Nanded vs the State of Maharashtra Th. Its Secretory Dept of School Education and Sports. and Ors.

Keshav Rama Muddewad vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Shashikala Vinayak Ketkar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Zaid Toman Abdul Rahman vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary School Education Dept.

Shriram Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha through Its Secretary vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Anr.