Bombay High Court
Deputy Chief Executive Officer And ... vs Kishore Rangnath Sutar And Others on 26 March, 2026
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2026:BHC-AUG:12984-DB
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3032 OF 2026
Anil Yashwantrao Kamble
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3025 OF 2026
Vijay Shantaram Amale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3041 OF 2026
Ravindra Trambak Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3043 OF 2026
Kapil Ramrao Shewale
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra And Other
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2026
Suresh Gangaram Koganlavad And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3057 OF 2026
Ramkrushana Kondiba Gadekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{2}
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3067 OF 2026
Madhukar Kashiram Mugatrao
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3070 OF 2026
Bhaskar Sandu Thombare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3072 OF 2026
Vilas Dhondiba Kale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3136 OF 2026
Ramdas Shivareddi Pogale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2026
Krushna Tembhu Pandhare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2278 OF 2026
Shyam S/o Vijay Rahane And Another
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{3}
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3468 OF 2026 IN WP/2278/2026993
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar
VERSUS
Shyam Vijay Rahane And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2280 OF 2026
Sopan Bhujangrao Aglawe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Secretary And Panchyati Raj Department And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3487 OF 2026 IN WP/2280/20261002
Deputy Chief Executive Officer And Others
VERSUS
Sopan Bhujangrao Aglawe And Others
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2275 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3485 OF 2026 IN WP/2275/2026
Kishor Rangnath Sutar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Rural Development Department And Others
......
Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/3025/2026, WP/3041/2026,
Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/3032/2026
Ms. Ashwini A. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/3043/2026
Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/3051/2026
Mr. Ravindra V. Gore, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/3057/2026,
WP/3067/2026, 3070/2026, 3072/2026
Mr. Sanket S. Palnitkar, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/3136/2026
Mr. Rajendra R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/3146/2026
Mr. Pralhad D. Bachate, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/2278/2026
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Applicant in CA/3468/2026
Mr. S.V. Advant a/w Harish S. Advant, Advocates for Petitioner in
WP/2280/2026
Mr. Uttam B. Bondar, Advocate for Applicant in CA/3487/2026
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{4}
Mr. Shubham S. Khoche, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/2275/2026
Mr. S.R. Sapkal a/w P.L. Kale, Advocates for Applicant in CA/3485/2026
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader, Mr. S.K. Tambe, Addl. G.P. Mr. R.S.
Wani, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, Mr. V.M. Kagne, S.B. Narwade, Mr. Abhijit M.
Phule, AGPs for Respondents- State in respective WPs
Mr. S.R. Dhiple, Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Mr. Uttam B. Bondar,, Ms. Megha Mali
h/f Ms. Yogita Thorat, Advocates for Zilla Parishads in respective WPs
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate for Respondent-State Election Commission
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24 MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26 MARCH, 2026
ORDER [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. All these petitions involve a common challenge to the
notification/Government Resolution dated 20th February 2026 issued
by the State of Maharashtra, whereby Ex-Sarpanchs have been
appointed as Administrators and administrative committees comprising
ex-Deputy Sarpanchs and ex-members have been constituted to manage
the affairs of the respective Gram Panchayats across various districts of
the State, consequent upon the expiry of the tenures of those Gram
Panchayats.
2. The first batch of these group petitions was heard by this Court
on 27th February 2026. After hearing the advocates for the petitioners,
notices were issued to the respondents with a direction to file an
affidavit in reply. At that stage, since the petitioners had prima facie
satisfied this Court that the issue required serious consideration and a
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{5}
detailed response from the respondents was necessary, this Court was
inclined to pass an ad-interim order.
3. However, at that stage the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the State informed this Court that in respect of all Gram
Panchayats except those situated in the District of Chhatrapati Sambhaji
Nagar, orders for taking charge as Administrator had already been
issued and in some cases charge had already been assumed.
Considering this ground situation, this Court, by its order dated 27th
February 2026, restricted its directions only to the District of
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, directing the Chief Executive Officer of
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar not to issue any further orders in
pursuance of the impugned Government Resolution until the next date
of hearing. Separately, the Chief Executive Officer of AhilyaNagar was
directed to issue instructions to the Administrators already appointed
not to take any financial decisions until the next date.
4. The matters were scheduled for further consideration on 24th
March 2026, after the filing of the affidavit in reply by the respondent
authorities.
5. After 27th February 2026, several more petitions raising similar
challenges but pertaining to different districts were filed before this
Court. Those matters were circulated before this Court from time to
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{6}
time and, since they involved the same issues, this Court directed their
circulation together for 24th March 2026 along with the earlier
petitions, so that all petitions could be heard and decided together.
6. On 24th March 2026, when the matters came up for hearing, the
learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the
Division Bench at the Principal Seat of this Court at Bombay had, on
18th March 2026, passed orders in petitions involving a similar
challenge. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench at the Principal
Seat had recorded that the learned Government Pleader at Bombay
would move a praecipe before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay
High Court to club all petitions filed at the Benches at Nagpur,
Aurangabad and the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, so that they could be
placed together before the Principal Seat for consideration. The Division
Bench at the Principal Seat had also passed an ad-interim order broadly
similar in scope to the order passed by this Court on 27th February
2026, permitting those Sarpanchs to whom orders had already been
issued to occupy the position of Administrator and to take charge, but
restraining the Administrator and the administrative committee from
taking any policy decision, incurring major expenditure, and permitting
only minor expenditure required for routine day-to-day administration
including payment of salaries of employees and statutory payments
towards water, electricity and other essential services.
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{7}
7. Since the question of clubbing all matters from all Benches with
the petitions filed before the Principal Seat was pending before the
Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side, this Court was initially
inclined to adjourn the matters. However, the petitioners appearing in
the earlier petitions and in fresh petitions insisted on pressing for a
hearing on the question of interim relief in the light of the affidavit in
reply already filed by the State mentioning that source of power to issue
impugned Government Resolution is in accordance with Section 151 of
Maharashtra Villa Panchayat Act.
8. The advocates appearing for the respondent Zilla Parishads
informed this Court of two civil applications that had been filed, Civil
Application No. 3468 of 2026, filed by Zilla Parishad AhilyaNagar,
seeking vacation of the ad-interim order dated 27th February 2026
passed by this Court and modification thereof permitting the
administrative committee and the Administrator to take necessary
financial decisions in respect of their statutory and administrative
functions; and Civil Application No. 3487 of 2026, filed by Zilla
Parishad Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, seeking vacation of the entire ad-
interim relief granted by this Court and permitting the Chief Executive
Officer to issue orders in compliance of the impugned Government
Resolution. All these civil applications categorically state that the order
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{8}
passed on 27th February 2026 causes severe prejudice to the
functioning of the Gram Panchayats and, therefore, the order needs to
be vacated.
9. Before commencing the substantive hearing, this Court clarified
to all counsel that since the question of clubbing was pending before the
Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side, the hearing before this
Court would be confined only to the question of interim relief. With that
clarification, the hearing was conducted on the group of petitions along
with the civil applications for vacation and modification of the earlier
ad-interim order.
10. The factual backdrop, as set out in the petitions and as borne
out by the material placed before this Court, is common and
undisputed. The tenures of the concerned Gram Panchayats in various
districts of Maharashtra had come to an end, in most cases, in
December 2025 and January 2026. Elections to constitute fresh Gram
Panchayats had not been conducted prior to or upon the expiry of such
tenures. In this situation, the State Government issued the impugned
notification/Government Resolution dated 20th February 2026, by
which ex-Sarpanchs were appointed as Administrators and committees
comprising ex-Deputy Sarpanchs and ex-members of the same Gram
Panchayats were constituted to manage the day-to-day affairs of those
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{9}
Gram Panchayats until fresh elections are held and new Gram
Panchayats are constituted.
11. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners, though
appearing in different matters pertaining to different districts, advanced
broadly common submissions attacking the impugned Government
Resolution on the grounds of absence of power and legal authority.
12. The core submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the rules framed
thereunder do not empower the State Government to appoint an ex-
Sarpanch as Administrator or to constitute an administrative committee
consisting of ex-Deputy Sarpanchs and ex-members of a Gram
Panchayat whose term has already expired and been completed. There
is no provision in the statutory scheme that authorizes such a course of
action.
13. Relying upon Article 243E of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners submitted that the constitutional provision is express and
unambiguous, every Panchayat shall continue for five years from the
date appointed for its first meeting, and no longer. Article 243E further
mandates that an election to constitute a new Panchayat shall be
completed before the expiry of the duration of the outgoing Panchayat.
The constitutional scheme accordingly attaches finality to the five-year
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{10}
tenure and makes the conduct of fresh elections a constitutional
obligation, not a matter of administrative discretion.
14. The petitioners further submitted that the action of the
respondent authorities in issuing the impugned Government Resolution
and appointing ex-Sarpanchs and ex-members whose terms have
already expired is directly in violation of Article 243E of the
Constitution of India. Once it is demonstrated that the impugned
Government Resolution is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayats Act and violative of Article 243E, the Government
Resolution is required to be stayed effectively and no actions pursuant
thereto should be permitted to proceed, even if the orders are issued to
take charge.
15. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State
defended the action of the State Government in issuing the impugned
Government Resolution. The State's submissions may be summarized as
follows:
16. The tenures of all the concerned Gram Panchayats had admittedly
expired in December 2025 and January 2026. Due to the several
elections that had been held and conducted in the State of Maharashtra
over the preceding one year, it was difficult for the State Election
Commission as well as for the State Government to hold elections of
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{11}
these Gram Panchayats immediately. In such a situation, the impugned
Government Resolution was necessitated for ensuring proper
functioning of the Gram Panchayats during the interregnum.
17. As regards the source of power, the learned Government Pleader
relied upon Section 151 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and,
in particular, the t proviso thereof. It was submitted that the said
proviso, which was introduced by way of amendment, deals with
certain eventualities and specifically empowers the State Government to
issue directions/orders/Government Resolutions appointing an
Administrator and administrative committees for functioning of Gram
Panchayats whose tenure has expired until fresh elections are held and
a new Gram Panchayat is constituted.
18. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance upon
Article 243E of the Constitution of India to buttress the State's
argument, submitting that the said provision, read as a whole and in
context, does not prohibit the State Government from putting in place
an interim arrangement to ensure continuity of governance at the
village level.
19. It was further submitted that, at the ad-interim stage, once a
source of power has been pointed out to this Court, the action cannot be
said to be completely illegal, and the matter should proceed to final
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{12}
disposal to determine whether the source of power relied upon by the
State is legally sustainable. At this stage, when the Government
Resolution has already been implemented in several districts and
Administrators and administrative committees have already taken
charge, it is not desirable to disturb the existing situation pending final
disposal of the petitions.
20. The learned advocates appearing for the respondent Zilla
Parishads argued that the ad-interim orders passed by this Court on
27th February 2026, restraining the Administrators and their
committees from taking financial or policy decisions, have effectively
paralysed the functioning of the Gram Panchayats. They submitted that
various public-purpose projects required to be undertaken at the Gram
Panchayat level necessarily involve incurring expenditure, and that the
blanket restriction on financial decisions has brought routine
governance to a standstill.
21. They further submitted that there are certain expenses that are
inherently required for the day-to-day affairs of the Gram Panchayat,
including fixed expenses in the nature of water taxes, electricity bills
and various other payments required to be made to contractors to
whom public works have been awarded. Regular salaries of labourers,
workers and employees of the Gram Panchayat are also required to be
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{13}
paid, and the restriction imposed upon making even such payments has
adversely affected the day-to-day functioning of the Gram Panchayats.
22. The learned advocate appearing for Zilla Parishad Chhatrapati
Sambhaji Nagar in Civil Application No. 3487 of 2026 adopted the
arguments of the learned Government Pleader and submitted that, in
view of the orders passed in respect of other Gram Panchayats
permitting the appointment of Administrators, the same course should
be permitted for the Gram Panchayats in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar
District as well. He further argued that once the State Government has
pleaded source of power then the authorities so appointed should be
permitted to function without restrictions.
23. We have heard all the learned advocates at length and have
carefully perused the affidavit in reply filed by the State. Since the
question before this Court at this stage is confined to the determination
of the appropriate interim arrangement, and whether such interim
orders are necessary or not? We set out our prima facie view on the
legality of the impugned Government Resolution and the source of
power claimed by the State and also the necessity of imposing
restrictions on the functioning of the said Administrators & Committees.
24. Article 243E of the Constitution is the starting point. Clause (1)
declares, in the plainest possible terms, that every Panchayat shall
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{14}
continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting 'and
no longer.' The expression 'and no longer' is not surplus language. It was
placed in the Constitution deliberately to foreclose any extension -- de
jure or de facto -- of the term of an elected Panchayat beyond five
years. Clause (3)(a) reinforces this by mandating that an election to
constitute the next Panchayat shall be completed before the expiry of
the duration of the outgoing Panchayat. The constitutional scheme thus
attaches finality to the five-year tenure and makes the holding of timely
elections a constitutional obligation.
25. The constitutional text also draws a careful distinction between
two distinct situations. (a) Where the full five-year term has run its
course, the mandate is for fresh elections to have been held before such
expiry. (b) Where a Panchayat is dissolved before the expiry of its term,
clauses (3)(b) and (4) provide a limited window of six months for fresh
elections and confine the tenure of the reconstituted body to the
remainder of the original term. Once the full tenure has expired, the
Constitution does not contemplate or empowers legislative, executive or
administrative by which the same elected body, or any arrangement that
amounts to its continuation in substance, may be perpetuated beyond
the constitutional period.
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{15}
26. The impugned Government Resolution, viewed in the light of
this constitutional provision, ex facie seeks to do what the Constitution
does not permit, it reintroduces the same persons ex-Sarpanchs and ex-
members who ceased to hold office upon the constitutional expiry of
their five-year term, under the guise of Administrators and an
administrative committee. The authority of those persons derived solely
from the electoral mandate of the people. Once the constitutional term
of five years is over, that mandate is exhausted.
27. If such a course is permitted thatn, Article 243E(1) would
effectively be reduced to mean 'five years and no longer' to 'five years,
subject to executive extension in another form whenever elections are
delayed.' The Constitution does not permit such a course. To allow
executive action to do indirectly what the Constitution expressly
prohibits would be to treat constitutional mandate as a mere directory
provision susceptible of administrative interference.
28. Section 145 of the Act is a provision that operates in an entirely
distinct field. It is a punitive or corrective dissolution power that rests
on defined statutory grounds such as abuse of power, incompetence,
persistent default, and disobedience of lawful directions. It is hedged by
procedural safeguards; it requires the State to form the requisite
opinion, consult the Zilla Parishad, and give the Panchayat an
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{16}
opportunity to explain. Upon dissolution under Section 145, all
members vacate office and the State Government may then appoint
persons to exercise the functions of the Panchayat during the dissolution
period. This provision does not arise in any situation where the
Panchayat's tenure has naturally expired. It operates only where the
State takes active corrective action against a functioning Panchayat for
statutory default. Section 145 is therefore of no assistance to the State
in the present case and, indeed, the State has not seriously relied upon
it. The provision, far from assisting the State, actually illustrates the
principle that where the Legislature intended the State to displace a
Panchayat and put an alternative arrangement in place, it did so by
laying down express grounds, procedural safeguards and consequences,
this is pattern entirely absent in the impugned Government Resolution.
29. Section 151 deals with a situation where a Panchayat has not
been 'validly constituted' under the Act. The State has placed primary
reliance upon its proviso, which deals with a situation where elections
could not be held by the State Election Commission as per schedule due
to natural calamity, emergency, war, financial emergency, administrative
difficulties, or epidemic disease. In such a contingency, the proviso
authorizes the State Government to appoint 'a suitable person as the
administrator on such panchayat.
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{17}
30. Two distinct difficulties arise with the State's reliance upon this
provision. First, the provision, it authorizes appointment of 'a suitable
person as the administrator' a singular formulation that refers to an
interim administrator to manage affairs, not to the constitution of an
administrative committee of former elected representatives. The
Legislature, while specifically dealing with the situation of postponed
elections, chose to authorize appointment of one suitable person as
administrator. If the Legislature had intended to permit the revival of
the outgoing elected body in a temporary nominated form, it would
have said so expressly. It has not done so. The State cannot, by a
Government Resolution, expand the statutory power to authorize
something that the statute itself does not permit. Executive instructions
may supplement administration but they cannot widen a statutory
power or substitute a different arrangement from the one that statute
prescribes.
31. Second, and more fundamentally, the core field of Section 151 is
where a Panchayat has 'not been validly constituted.' This contemplates
a situation of invalidity or void functioning of Gram Panchayats, not the
natural expiry of a constitutionally prescribed term. Where the full five-
year term has run its course, the proper constitutional mandate is
governed by Article 243E to hold fresh elections of Gram Panchayats.
The interregnum, if any, must be managed in a manner consistent with
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{18}
the constitutional mandate, not in a manner that reimposes the
authority in those whose mandate has expired.
32. Prima facie, therefore, neither Section 145 nor Section 151 of
the Act provides legal sanction for the course adopted by the State
Government. The State cannot rely on these provisions for source of
power; thus upon a prima facie examination, it does not support to the
arrangement created by the impugned Government Resolution.
33. The object of constituting Panchayats was for securing
democratic decentralization and participatory self-governance at the
grass-root level of the society. The constitutional status accorded to
Panchayats as institutions of self-government was intended to ensure
that Panchayats become viable and responsive people's bodies directly
accountable to the electorate through periodic democratic elections.
That objective is fundamentally undermined if, after the constitutional
tenure expires, the same outgoing body is reintroduced through
executive actions to run the same Gram Panchayat in the interregnum.
34. The legal position urged by the petitioners thus finds support in
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The following
authority is relevant and can be relied upon:
(i) Kiran Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2018) 7 SCC 521: The
Supreme Court, in this decision, reiterated the constitutional stature of
Panchayats as institutions of democratic decentralization and described
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{19}
them as democratically organized units of self-government. The Court
quoted with approval the proposition that the object of the Seventy-
Third Amendment is to ensure democratic decentralization so that
Panchayats become viable and responsive people's bodies. The principle
emerging from this decision reinforces the constitutional imperative of
periodic elections at the Panchayat level and militates against any
executive arrangement that substitutes for or delays such elections.
35. On an overall consideration of the statutory scheme, the
constitutional provisions and the case law discussed above, we are
prima facie not satisfied that the State Government has the authority or
power to issue the impugned Government Resolution appointing ex-
Sarpanchs as Administrators and constituting administrative committees
of ex-members of Gram Panchayats whose five-year tenure had already
expired. The source of power relied upon by the State on Section 151 of
the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, and in particular the proviso
does not, at least at this stage, appear to justify the arrangement created
by the impugned Government Resolution. The power to appoint 'a
suitable person as the administrator' does not extend to the
appointment of ex-Sarpanch as Administrator or constitution of an
administrative committee of former elected representatives. Executive
action cannot fill the gap between what the Legislature expressly
permitted and what the State Government has done.
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{20}
36. The coordinate Division Bench at the Principal Seat of this Court
has, by its order dated 18th March 2026, recorded a broadly similar ad-
interim arrangement, which further reinforces our view that the issue
raised is of considerable substance and merits serious examination at
the final hearing.
37. Having arrived at the prima facie view recorded above, we find
it necessary to consider the appropriate interim arrangement. Two
considerations are in force. On the one hand, serious doubt exists as to
the very authority of the State Government to create the impugned
arrangement and hence it would not be appropriate to permit
unrestricted exercise of powers by such appointees pending further
consideration of the matter. Giving such a free hand to Administrators
and administrative committees whose very appointment is under
constitutional and statutory challenge would risk creating a fait
accompli, rendering effective final relief difficult and potentially
creating third-party rights and long-term obligations that may be
difficult to undo.
38. On the other hand, it is undeniable that in several districts the
impugned notification has already been acted upon, Administrators and
administrative committees have already taken charge of the respective
Gram Panchayats.
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{21}
39. A well balance approach is therefore necessary. The interim
arrangement earlier directed by this Court on 27th February 2026
strikes a proper balance. We are, for the reasons set out above, satisfied
that the ad-interim orders passed on 27th February 2026, permitting the
Administrators and administrative committees to proceed with
functioning subject to suitable restrictions, are in consonance with the
facts and the legal position as it stands prima facie. The decision not to
permit any further orders that were not yet issued as on 27th February
2026 is also appropriate in order to avoid fresh implementation of an
arrangement of doubtful legality. The orders of 27th February 2026
effectively maintained the status quo as it existed on that date and
nothing further.
40. We further note that the coordinate Division Bench at the
Principal Seat has, by its order dated 18th March 2026 in the group of
petitions including the Writ Petition No. 2912 of 2026, passed a broadly
similar interim order. In the interest of uniformity, we modify our order
dated 27th February 2026 to bring it in line with the order of the
Division Bench at the Principal Seat dated 18th March 2026. We do not,
however, find any reason to interfere with the substance of our earlier
order at this stage.
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt
{22}
41. As regards Civil Application No. 3468 of 2026 filed by Zilla
Parishad AhilyaNagar and Civil Application No. 3487 of 2026 filed by
Zilla Parishad Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar for vacation/modification of
the ad-interim order, we do not find sufficient grounds to vacate the
interim arrangement as a whole. The concerns raised by the Zilla
Parishads regarding day-to-day administration are not unappreciated.
They are, however, adequately addressed by permitting routine
expenditure for essential services as set out in the operative order. The
civil applications are accordingly disposed of in the terms of the order
that follows.
ORDER
42. In the light of the prima facie view recorded above, we direct as follows:
(a) In all districts where orders pursuant to the impugned Government Resolution dated 20th February 2026 have already been issued and Administrators and administrative committees have already taken charge, such Administrators and administrative committees shall confine themselves strictly to routine day-to-day administrative functions. The matters in respect of which they may act include, payment of salaries and wages to employees, labourers and workers of the Gram Panchayat; payment of water charges and electricity charges; payment of maintenance expenses;
and all other essential statutory payments required to 3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt {23} maintain essential services at the village level. Such persons who have taken charge may continue to perform these limited functions until further orders.
(b) Subject to the above, the Administrators and administrative committees appointed pursuant to the impugned Government Resolution shall not, during the pendency of these petitions and until further orders of this Court, take any policy decision, incur any major financial liability, create any third-party rights, award any fresh contracts or tenders, or take any decision having long-term financial or administrative consequences for the Gram Panchayat or for the public at large.
(c) In all districts where, as on 27th February 2026, no orders pursuant to the impugned Government Resolution had been issued or no charge had been taken by any Administrator or administrative committee, no further steps shall be taken pursuant to the said Government Resolution dated 20th February 2026 until further orders of this Court.
(d) The above directions shall operate as a modification of and in substitution of the earlier ad-interim directions issued by this Court on 27th February 2026, bringing them in uniformity with the order dated 18th March 2026 of the coordinate Division Bench at the Principal Seat.
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt {24}
(e) The State respondents are granted time to file a detailed affidavit in reply in all petitions where the same has not yet been filed. Rejoinder affidavits, if any, may be filed by the petitioners thereafter.
43. The interim arrangement directed above is purely interim, founded entirely on the prima facie view recorded by us in this order.
Nothing stated herein shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. All contentions of all parties are expressly kept open for consideration at the stage of final hearing.
44. Civil Application No. 3468 of 2026 (Zilla Parishad AhilyaNagar) and Civil Application No. 3487 of 2026 (Zilla Parishad Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar) are disposed of in the above terms. The interim relief sought in those applications for vacation of the ad-interim order is declined. The modification in the terms of direction (a) above, permitting routine day-to-day administrative expenditure, is however noted.
45. Since the question of clubbing all matters from the Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur with the matters at the Principal Seat is pending before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side.
3025-26-WP (GP Gr).odt {25}
46. The matters shall be listed for further directions on a date to be notified by the Registry, subject to any orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side.
47. In the meantime, the interim arrangement as directed above shall continue.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane