2025:BHC-AUG:37582 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11195 OF 2022 Pallavi Ashok Kate Age: 29 years, Occu: Sarpanch, R/o.- Irachiwadi, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ..Petitioner VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through, The Additional Division Commissioner No.2, Aurangabad 2. The Collector, Osmanabad Collector Office, Osmanabad.

3. Shakuntala Shukracharya Khamkar Age: 60 years, Occu.: Grampanchayat Member, R/o.- Irachiwadi, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.

4. Suman Ambadas Jadhav Age: 60 years, Occu.: Grampanchayat Member, R/o.- Irachiwadi, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.

5. Dipak Ambadas Jadhav Age: 60 years, Occu.: Grampanchayat Member, R/o.- Irachiwadi, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ..Respondents ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. S.A. Kale h/f Mr. Kale Ajeet B.

AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. R.B. Dhaware Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. V.S. Undre ...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for respective parties.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Collector, Osmanabad whereby the dispute filed by respondent no.3 under Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act came to be allowed.

4. It is contention of the petitioner that on 12.02.2021, she filed nomination for the post of Sarpanch and during the period of filing nomination, only nomination form of the petitioner was received. Nominations of other candidates were scrutinized and the nomination form of respondent no.3 was declared as invalid and therefore, the petitioner was only candidate in the fray of election, the returning officer because of the chaos in the meeting, adjourned the meeting and adjourned meeting was held at 03.20 on the same day wherein the election officer declared that the petitioner got elected on the post of Sarpanch.

5. Ms. Sakshi Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding was assailed by filing dispute under Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act before the Collector. The District Collector allowed the dispute and the same is confirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.

In support of her contention, she relied upon the case of Abdul Gani Haji Mohamad Vs. Collector, Akole reported in 1963 Mh.L.J. 41, by pointing out that Rule 4 of the Village Panchayat is directory one and not mandatory. She further relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrakant Khaire Vs. Shantaram Kale and Others, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1665. She further submits that in fact, there was no any voting in the said meeting and only declaration was remained and therefore, the returning officer has rightly adjourned the meeting on the same day and declared the petitioner elected. She submits that both the authorities ought not to have allowed the dispute filed by respondent no.3 only on the ground that there was violation of rules and the rules ought to have been read as directory and not mandatory. On all this count, she submits that the order passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned AGP supports the order passed by both the authorities.

7. Having gone through the order passed by both the authorities and more particularly the proceeding which was conducted on 12.02.2021, there is no dispute about the fact that to elect a Sarpanch, the meeting was convened and there were some chaos on account of filing of nominations of petitioner and respondent no.3.

8. It has come on record that the adjourned meeting was not held on that day and same was conducted on the same day at 03.20, once the meeting was adjourned, it is to be in accordance with Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Rules for Sarpanch &

Up-sarpanch Rules, 1964.

9. It is useful to refer Rule 11 of the Rules 1964.