2026:BHC-AUG:7895 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.14451 OF 2025 Amol Sambhaji Gunjal, Age: 39 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Gunjalwadi, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar. ..Petitioner Versus

1. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

2. The Collector, Ahilyanagar, District Ahilyanagar.

3. The Gram Panchayat, Gunjalwadi, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar.

4. The Gram Sevak/

The Village Development Officer, R/o. Gunjalwadi, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar.

5. Pandharinath Laxman Gunjal, Age 61 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Gunjalwadi, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar. ..Respondents ...

Mr. A. D. Sonkawade, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondents-State.

Ms. Suvarna Zaware Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

…

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : 14th JANUARY, 2026.

JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 20.11.2025 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.38/2025, whereby proceeding of disqualification initiated by petitioner has been relegated back to District Collector for re-enquiry.

3. The petitioner has been directly elected as Sarpanch from general public for Village Panchayat, Gunjalwadi. The respondent no.5 filed application before District Collector, Ahilyanagar seeking disqualification of petitioner under Sections 14(1)(i) and 14(1)(J-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act (for short ‘MVP Act’). The District Collector called report from Village Panchayat, wherein it is clarified that petitioner is serving as Peon in private school. It is also clarified that no encroachment on Government land by petitioner could be found. On 20.01.2025, District Collector, Ahilyanagar rejected Dispute Application seeking disqualification of petitioner. Aggrieved respondent no.5 filed Gram Panchayat Appeal No.38/2025 before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, who partly allowed Appeal and relegated matter back to District Collector for fresh enquiry.

4. Mr. Sonkawade, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that District Collector had recorded elaborate findings on all issues raised in dispute before him. He would submit that there is no semblance of evidence to show that petitioner has encroached upon Government land. As such, disqualification contemplated under Section 14(1)(J-3) of MVP Act does not attract. Secondly, violation of Section 42(2) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short ‘MEPS Act, 1981’) would not constitute disqualification. The impugned order setting aside decision of District Collector and relegating matter back to District Collector is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr. Jadhavar, learned AGP and Ms. Suvarna Zaware, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.5 supports impugned order. They would submit that District Collector failed to record clear findings on point of petitioner’s encroachment on Government land. The petitioner and his family members have encroached upon Government land situated at CTS Nos.160, 161 and 162. The District Collector has erroneously observed that since petitioner’s name does not appear as occupant in record of aforesaid city survey numbers disqualification does not attract. According to them, in light of specific complaint regarding encroachment, measurement by Competent Authority would be necessary to ascertain fact in issue. Further petitioner being employee of school, he could not have contested election without prior permission of his management in terms of Section 42(2) of MEPS Act, 1981. This particular aspect is not dealt with by District Collector, hence, order of remand is justified.

6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it is discernible fro