NARESH H. PATIL, J. :-

Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for hearing.

2. The petitioner is elected member of the Panchayat Samiti Dharur, District Beed. The Panchayat Samiti consists of 6 members. The election of Panchayat Samiti, Dharur for the six seats was held in February, 2007 according to the petitioner. In the month of March, 2007 election to the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti was held for a period of two and half years. Due to operation of Code of Conduct for the Assembly elections, the election for the office of the Chairman was not held in October, 2009. A programme was published by respondent No. 2 - Collector on 4-11-2009 and in the Official Gazette of the State of Maharashtra dated 11-11-2009 thereby fixing the reservation of offices of the Chairmen of 11 Panchayat Samitis in Beed District. The petitioner contends that the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti Dharur was reserved for candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe.

3. The Member of the Panchayat Samiti belonging to Scheduled Tribe category was not available. Therefore the respondent No.2 - Collector in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (President, Vice-President and Chairmen of Subjects Committee) and Panchayat Samitis (Chairman and Deputy Chairman) (Reservation of Offices and Election) Rules, 1962 (for short, "the Rules") dereserved the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti by an order dated 4-11-2009 which was published in Official Gazette dated 11-1-2009.

4. The respondent No. 2 - Collector Beed by a notice dated 16-11-2009 called a special meeting of the members of the Panchayat Samiti Dharur on 27-11-2009 at 2.00 p.m. for the purpose of election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Dharur. In the meanwhile, the issue which was referred to the respondent No. 1 in respect of de-reservation was considered by the State and by a communication/order dated 25-11-2009 it was informed that the view adopted by the respondent No. 2 - Collector of de-reservation of the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti Dharur from the said category was wrong in view of the provisions of clause (6) of Rule 2-F of the said Rules.

The State Government directed that in such contingency the office of the Chairman is to be allotted to a candidate by drawing lots to any of the categories for which the office of the Chairman is reserved in view of the provisions of section 67 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act").

5. The Collector Beed by a notice dated 26-11-2009 scheduled a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 1-12-2009 at 2.00 p.m. for electing the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner submits that on the same day i.e. on 26-11-2009 by another notice the Collector Beed scheduled a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti Dharur on 28-11-2009 at 4.00 p.m. for drawing lots. The Collector, therefore issued notice to the petitioner and other members of the Panchayat Samiti Dharur. The special meeting scheduled on 27-11-2009 was postponed to 1-12-2009. The meeting was accordingly conducted on 28-11-2009 and the minutes of the meeting were drawn. It is reflected from the minutes of the meeting that in the earlier years of 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008 the office of the Panchayat Samiti Dharur was reserved for Woman (General), General, Backward Class of the society and Scheduled Tribe respectively. And therefore in view of the Government Circular dated 20th June, 2009 the office of the Chairman would be reserved for candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes category.

6. The petitioner raises challenge to the minutes of the said meeting and the proceedings.

7. The learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 committed error because by a communication dated 25th November, 2009 the Government specifically directed to