SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Bom) 288

A.D.MANE, R.G.DESHPANDE
Sitaram s/o Bansi Pawar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others – Respondent


Per A.D. MANE, J.:---Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.The petitioner was elected as Up-Sarpanch of village Grampanch-ayat Gevrai Brooke Bond, tq. and dist. Aurangabad. On 3-12-1997, the Collector, who is respondent No. 2 herein, has directed the Tahsildar to hold election of Sarpanch as per section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Tahsildar in exercise of his powers, appointed the respondent No. 4 as Presiding Officer for holding the election for vacant office of Sarpanch. It is, however, the contention of the petitioner that the Collector has not fixed the date of election when appointment of respondent No. 4 as Presiding Officer was made by the Tahsildar. Moreover, the date of election has been left to the discretion of the respondent No. 4. It is, therefore, submitted that there is an apparent error of law on the face of the proceeding of election of Sarpanch and hence, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of direction that the respondent No. 2 Collector be directed to hold election of Sarpanch in accordance with law for the time being in force.

3.On hearing Shri Sapkal, learned A.G.P. for respondent, we find that there is substance in the say of the petiti





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top