Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Manisha Rajendra Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 October, 2024
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.15 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17777/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-07-2024
in WP No. 6416/2024 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay At Aurangabad)
MANISHA RAJENDRA MAHAJAN & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
( IA No. 175285/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & IA No. 175286/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 04-10-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv.
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR
Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta-II, AOR/Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The petitioners were elected as a Member of the Village Panchayat in the Panchayat election of the Village Utaran, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra in the year 2021, which was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2024.10.05 last till January, 2026. All three petitioners have been elected as 17:20:17 IST Reason:
members of the said Village Panchayat and Petitioner no.1 was then elected as Sarpanch of the said Village. Subsequently, the election 2 of the petitioners was challenged on the ground that they had not submitted entire expenses incurred by them in the Panchayat elections as per the concerned Panchayat Rules/Act. Though the petitioners furnished the details of expenses but did not submit an affidavit explaining those expenses.
Considering it to be a violation of the Panchayat Rules/Act, the petitioners were disqualified as Sarpanch and as members of the Panchayat. The petitioners challenged their disqualification before the High Court and being unsuccessful there, they have approached this Court. The main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the concerned Rules/Act under which the petitioners have been disqualified are directory and not mandatory in nature. We are, however, not getting into these facts as much water has flown since their disqualification, as elections were notified and subsequently, even the new Sarpanch has been elected.
Under these facts, we see absolutely no reason to interfere in the judgment/order of the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.
(NIRMALA NEGI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)