The main legal point established in the judgment is that the CEO should have a free hand in the appointment of an administrator to ensure impartiality and fairness of the elections, ruling out any possibility of political interference.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This group of Petitions is being disposed of by a common judgment and order as a common issue is involved and argued. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for a declaration that the impunged Ordinance No.10 of 2020 i.e. the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance' for short) is unconstitutional and/or ultra vires the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short).

3. The petitioners have further prayed for the directions to the State to forthwith withdraw and/or cancel the impugned Government Resolution ('G.R.' for short) dated 13th July, 2020 issued by the Rural Development Department and also the impugned G.R. dated 14th July, 2020 issued by the Rural Development Department and/or for quashing thereof.

4. In view of the subsequent developments during the course of hearing of this Petition, the petitioners have restricted their challenge presently only as regards the G.R. dated 13th July, 2020 which provides for appointment of administrator for the Grampanchayat by the Chief Executive Officer ('CEO' for short) of the respective Zilla Parishad in consultation with the Guardian Minister of the respective district. According to the petitioners, seeking advice of the Guardian Minister before appointing an administrator will defeat the constitutional scheme of free and fair elections.

5. The facts of the present Petition in brief are as under :-

On 17th March, 2020, on account of Covid-19 pandemic, the Maharashtra State Election Commission issued orders for postponement of the elections of Gram Panchayats in the State where the process of elections had reached. Due to pandemic, it was not possible to conduct fresh elections in all Gram Panchayats where the tenure of the earlier elected committee had come to an end.

6. By the impugned ordinance, the respondent State has amended the said Act by exercising powers under Article 213 (1) of the Constitution of India on the ground that there existed an emergency warranting issuance of an ordinance and thereby amending Section 151 of the said Act by adding second proviso to sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 151 of the said Act. By this amendment it is provided that in case it is not possible to conduct elections of Gram Panchayat/s according to the schedule fixed by the State Election Commission ('SEC' for short) on account of any natural calamity or emergency or war or financial emergency or administrative difficulties or pandemic ; the Government can appoint any person as 'Administrator' of such Gram Panchayat.

7. After the ordinance came to be issued, the respondent issued G.R. dated 13th July, 2020 whereby the CEO of the Gram Panchayat is empowered to appoint administrator on the advice of the concerned Guardian Minister. The challenge in this petition is now restricted to the G.R. dated 13th July, 2020 to the extent of seeking advice of the concerned Guardian Minister. It is the contention of the petitioners that for ensuring free and fair elections, the role of the Guardian Minister in the matter of appointment of an administrator has to be eliminated and to that extent the impugned G.R. dated 13th July, 2020 needs to be struck down.

8. Learned counsel contended that by virtue of the impugned G.R. dated 13th July, 2020, the Guardian Minister of a particular district would decide as to who should be appointed under the amended proviso as a person in charge of the Gram Panchayat. According to counsel, this clearly defeats the constitutional mandate in more than one way. In the first place due to such uncontrolled power, the ruling party would be in a position to defeat the wish of the majority of the population in a village. Secondly, the impugned G.R. would confer unr