Bombay High Court
Anuja Kalyan Gore vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 March, 2018
Author: R.M. Borde
Bench: R.M. Borde, K.K. Sonawane
{1}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.209 of 2018
Anuja w/o Kalyan Gore,
Age: Years, occu: politician and agril
R/o Bansarola, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of collector, Nagar Road
Beed
3 The Tahsildar, Kaij
Tahsil Office, Kaij.
4 Grampanchayat, Bansarola
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed
through its Gramsevak Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2292 OF 2018
Smt. Nanda Balaji Thombre,
Age: 31 years, occu: household,
R/o Shiradshahapur,
Tq. Aundha (Ng), Dist. Hingoli Petitioner
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Department of Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Collector,
Collector Office, Hingoli
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{2}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
3 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Vasmat, Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli
4 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office, Aundha-Nagnath,
Tq. Aundha Nagnath,
Dist. Hingoli
5 Village Panchayat Shiradshahapur
Tq. Aundha (Ng) Dist. Hingoli
through Its Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15309 OF 2017
Sojrabai w/o Yeshwanta Panhalkar,
Age - 55 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o- Nalwandi, Tq.- Patoda
Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Patoda,
Tahsil Office, Patoda,
Dist. Beed.
4 Grampanchayat, Nalwandi,
Tq- Patoda & Dist.- Beed.
Through it's Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{3}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
WRIT PETITION NO.15310 OF 2017
Vikram s/o Jayram Khandagale,
Age - Major, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o- Palsingan,
Tq & Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Beed,
Tahsil Office, Beed
4 Grampanchayat, Palsingan
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
Through it's Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15312 OF 2017
Bhalchandra s/o Narayan Bhanadane,
Age - 30 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o- Karchundi,
Tq & Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Beed,
Tahsil Office, Beed
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{4}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
4 Grampanchayat, Karchundi
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
Through it's Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15314 OF 2017
Manisha w/o Ganesh Waghmare
Age - 30 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o- Ghatshil Pargaon, Tq. Shirur Kasar,
Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Shirur,
Tahsil Office, Shirur, Dist.-Beed
4 Grampanchayat, Ghatshil Pargaon
Tq.- Shirur Kasar & Dist. Beed
Through Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15317 OF 2017
Nita w/o Hanuman Sasane
Age - 30 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o- Charhata,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{5}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Beed,
Tahsil Office, Beed
4 Grampanchayat, Charhata
Tq. & Dist. Beed
Through its Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15318 OF 2017
Punam W/o Shrikant Giri
Age - 30 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o- Khadki Ghat,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Beed,
Tahsil Office, Nagar Road,
Beed
4 Grampanchayat, Khadki Ghat
Tq. & Dist. Beed
Through Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15319 OF 2017
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{6}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Saw. Shindubai W/o Popat Gawade
Age : 26 years, Occu. Household & Sarpanch,
R/o: Nimgaon Bodkha,
Tq. Ashti, District : Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through it's Secretary
Rural Development Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Beed, District : Beed.
3 The Tahsildar,
Ashti, Tal. Ashti,
District : Beed
4 Grampanchayat, Nimgaon Bodkha
Tal. Ashti, District : Beed
Through Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15384 OF 2017
Archana W/o Vilas Munde,
Age - 25 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o - Chikhalbeed, Tq. Wadwani,
Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Wadwani,
Tahsil Office, Wadwani,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{7}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
4 Grampanchayat, Chikhalbeed
Tq. - Wadwani & Dist.- Beed,
Through Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15385 OF 2017
Dipak s/o Sahebrao Umap,
Age - 25 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o - Antharvali, Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Georai,
Tahsil Office, Georai,
4 Grampanchayat, Antharvali
Tq. - Georai & Dist.- Beed,
Through Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15386 OF 2017
Pallavi W/o Vinod Kawade,
Age - 25 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o - Chakarwadi,
Tq. & Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{8}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Beed,
Tahsil Office, Nagar Road,
Beed.
4 Grampanchayat, Chakarwadi
Tq. & Dist.- Beed,
Through Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15387 OF 2017
Sayyed w/o Asama Shahid,
Age - 32 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o - Naigaon, Tq. Patoda,
Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Patoda,
Tahsil Office, Patoda,
4 Grampanchayat, Naigaon
Tq.- Patoda, Dist. Beed
Through Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15388 OF 2017
Sujata w/o Dilip Aher,
Age - 25 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{9}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
R/o - Umred, Tq. Georai,
Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Beed,
Tahsil Office, Beed.
4 Grampanchayat, Umred
Tq. & Dist.- Beed
Through it's Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15389 OF 2017
Vijaysinh s/o Ramkrishna Bangar,
Age - 25 years, Occ.- Politician and Agril,
R/o - Bhayala, Tq. - Patoda,
Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through Principal Secretary
Rural Development Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Patoda,
Tahsil Office, Patoda.
4 Grampanchayat, Bhayala
Tq.- Patoda & Dist.- Beed
Through its Gramsevak Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{10}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.200 OF 2018
Bhausaheb S/o. Mahadev Bharate
Age: 38 Years, Occup. Agriculture,
Sarpanch of village Vaijala,
Tq. - Patoda, Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Rural Development & Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai;
2 The District Collector,
Beed District,
Beed, Dist. Beed;
3 The Tahsildar,
Patoda Taluka, Dist. Beed;
4 The Village Panchayat, Vaijala
Tq.- Patoda, Dist.- Beed
Through it's Gramsevak
5 Nitin s/o Ramrao Dhere
Age 38 Years, Occu.- Agricultural,
R/o Vaijala, Tq. Patoda,
District - Beed.
6 Ramkaur W/o Sitaram Yede,
Age 38 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Vaijala, Tq. Patoda,
District - Beed. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.201 OF 2018
Bhagwat S/o. Bajirao Aghav
Age; 59 years, Occu; Sarpanch,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{11}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
R/o, At. Jamb, Post. Khalapuri
Tq. - Shirur (Kasar), Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through it's Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector,
Collector Office, Beed.
3 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Shirur (Kasar)
Tal. Shirur (K), Dist. Beed.
4 The Village Panchayat Jamb / Dhokwad,
Tal. Shirur (K), Dist. Beed.
Through its Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.202 OF 2018
Shahadeo Balwantrao Khedkar
Age: 44 years, Occu.Agri.,
R/o: Sawargaon (Ch),
Tq. - Shirur (Ka), Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The District Collector,
Beed, Tal & Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahsildar,
Shirur (Ka), Tal. Shirur (Ka)
Dist. Beed.
4 Village Panchayat, Sawargaon (Cha)
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{12}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Tq. Shirur (Ka), Dist.- Beed.
Through its Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.203 OF 2018
Kaushalyabai w/o. Sarjerao Jadhav,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Agri & Household,
R/o. Bhendtakli, Tq. Georai,
Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Georai,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
4 Presiding Officer,
Gramsevak,
Grampanchayat, Bhendtakali,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
5 Village Panchayat, Bhendtakali,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed,
Through it's Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.204 OF 2018
Sheetal w/o Mukund Choudhary
Age - 28 years, Occu: Sarpanch,
R/o.Talkhed, Tq. Majalgon,
Dist.- Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{13}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Majalgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
4 Grampanchayat, Talkhed,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
Through its Gramsevak Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.205 OF 2018
Rukminbai w/o Dnyanoba Abuj
Age : 64 years, Occu: Agri & Household,
R/o.Shindaphana-Chincholi, Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Georai,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
4 Presiding Officer,
Village Development Officer,
Grampanchayat Sindaphana-Chincholi,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
5 Village Panchayat, Sindaphana-Chincholi,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{14}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Through it's Village Development
Officer Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.206 OF 2018
Rahini @ Rohini W/o Parmeshwar Kale
Age : 36 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Neknoor, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The District Collector,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahsildar,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
4 The Village Panchayat,
Neknoor, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
Through its Gram Vikas Adhikari Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 207 OF 2018
Ruapali w/o Mahesh Aher
Age-25 years, Occu.-politician and agri.,
R/o-Umapur, Tq.-Georai,
Dist.-Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{15}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
3 The Tahsildar, Georai
Tahsil Office, Georai.
4 Grampanchayat, Umapur
Tq.-Georai & Dist.-Beed,
Through its Gramsevak . Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2018
Puja w/o Sugriv Tadaskar
Age-26 years, Occu.politician and agri.,
R/o- Behend(Khurd), Tq.-Georai,
Dist.-Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Georai
Tahsil Office, Georai.
4 Grampanchayat, Bhend (Khurd)
Tq.-Georai & Dist. Beed,
Through its Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2018
Baban s/o Rambhau Jaybhaye
Age-52 years, Occu.-politician and agri.,
R/o- Pimplaner, Tq.-Shirur,
Dist.-Beed. Petitioner
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{16}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Shirur
Tahsil Office, Shirur.
4 Grampanchayat, Pimplaner
Tq.-Shirur & Dist. Beed,
Through its Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 211 OF 2018
Ramrao s/o Annasaheb Kale
Age-59 years, Occu-Agri.,
Now Sarpanch Dhangarjawalaka,
Tq. Patoda Dist. Beed,
R/o- Dhangarjawalaka, Tq. Patoda
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through Secretary Rural Development,
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The Collector Beed,
Collector Office, Beed.
3 Tahasildar Patoda
Tahsil Office, Patoda.
4 Grampanchayat Dongarkinhi
Through: It's Gramsevak.
Dhangarjawalaka Tq.Patoda Dist-Beed. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 212 OF 2018
Ramdas s/o Sahebrao Hange
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{17}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Age-51 years, Occu-Agri.,
R/o-Padali, Tq Shirur (Ka),
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principle Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The District Collector
Beed, Tal. & Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahasildar
Shirur (Ka), Tal. Shirur (Ka),
Dist. Beed.
4 The Village Panchayat,
Padali, Tq. Shirur (Ka),
Dist. Beed.
Through its Gram Sevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 214 OF 2018
Shashikala w/o Machhindra Tidke
Age-__ years, Occu.-politician and agri.,
R/o- Pimparwada, Tq.-Dharur,
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahasildar, Dharur
Tahsil Office, Dharur, Dist-Beed.
4 Grampanchayat, Pimparwada
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{18}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Tq-Dharur & Dist.-Beed
through it's Gramsevak . Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 258 OF 2018
Sarubai w/o Hausrao Rayate
Age-63 years, Occu.-Household,
Now Sarpanch Dongarkinhi,
Tq. Patoda Dist. Beed,
R/o-Dongarkinhi, Tq. Patoda
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Rural Development,
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The Collector Beed,
Collector Office, Beed.
3 Tahasildar Patoda
Tahsil Office, Patoda.
4 Grampanchayat Dongarkinhi,
Through: It's Gramsevak.
Dongarkinhi Tq.Patoda Dist-Beed. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 274 OF 2018
Rukminibai w/o Walmik Sawant
Age-40 years, Occu.-politician and agri.,
R/o- Kalegaonthadi, Tq. - Majalgaon
Dist.- Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{19}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Majalgaon
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon.
4 Grampanchayat, Kalegaonthadi,
Tq-Majalgaon & Dist.- Beed,
through it's Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2018
Muktabai w/o Bapurao Tarade,
Age-75 years, Occu.-Household,
R/o- Rampuri, Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The District Collector,
Beed, Tal & Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahasildar
Georai, Tal Georai, Dist. Beed.
4 The Village Panchayat, Rampuri,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed,
Through its Gram Sevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 276 OF 2018
Ashok s/o Housrao Misal,
Age-45 years, Occu.- politician and agri.,
R/o- Pangra, Tq.- Ashti,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{20}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Ashti
Tahsil Office, Ashti.
4 Grampanchayat, Pangra
Tq.-Ashti & Dist.-Beed,
Through its Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 277 OF 2018
Parasram s/o Sheshrao Mind,
Age-Major, Occu.- politician and agri.,
R/o- Borgaonthadi, Tq.-Georai,
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Georai,
Tahsil Office, Georai.
4 Grampanchayat, Borgaonthadi,
Tq.-Georai & Dist.- Beed,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{21}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Through its Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 278 OF 2018
Ramesh s/o Sakaharam Khetre,
Age-43 years, Occu.- politician and agri.,
R/o- Wahegaon Amla, Tq.- Georai,
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Georai
Tahsil Office, Georai.
4 Grampanchayat, wahegaon amla
Tq.- Georai & Dist.- Beed
Through its Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 2018
Udhdhav s/o Baliram Takat,
Age-51 years, Occu.-politician and agri.,
R/o- Roshanpuri, Tq.-Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{22}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Majalgaon,
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon.
4 Grampanchayat, Roshanpuri
Tq.-Majalgaon & Dist.-Beed,
Through: It's Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 304 OF 2018
Angad s/o Narsing Kawade
Age-32 years, Occu.-Agri.,
R/o-Golangri, Tal & Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The District Collector,
Beed, Tal & Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahasildar
Beed, Tal & Dist. Beed.
4 The Village Panchayat, Golangri,
Tal & Dist. Beed.
Through its Gram-sevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 407 OF 2018
Pandurang s/o Dadarao Nagargoje,
Age-42 years, Occu.-Agri.,
R/o-Rohatwadi, Tq. Patoda,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{23}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The District Collector,
Beed, Tal & Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahasildar,
Patoda, Tal. Patoda,
Dist. Beed.
4 The Village Panchayat, Rohatwadi,
Tal. Patoda, Dist. Beed,
Through its Gram-sevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 408 OF 2018
Bandu Babasaheb Sawase
Age-34 years, Occu-Agri.,
Now Sarpanch Nafarwadi,
Tq. Patoda Dist. Beed,
R/o-Nafarwadi, Tq. Patoda Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary Rural Development,
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The Collector Beed,
Collector Office, Beed.
3 Tahasildar Patoda
Tahsil Office, Patoda.
4 Grampanchayat Dongarkinhi,
Through: It's Gramsevak.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{24}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Nafarwadi Tq.Patoda Dist-Beed. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 409 OF 2018
Jaishree w/o Vilas Shendge
Age-29 years, Occu.-Household & Agri.,
And Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Chikali,
R/o-Chikali, Post. Jodhingani,
Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Principal Secretary, Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector, Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahasildar, Dharur,
Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed.
4 Gram Panchayat Chikali,
Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed
Through its Gram Sevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 799 OF 2018
Navnath s/o Rupa Rathod
Age-50 years, Occu.- politician and agri.,
R/o-Lamantanda, Tq.-Ashti,
Dist. Beed, Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{25}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector, Nagar Road,
Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Ashti
Tahsil Office, Ashti.
4 Grampanchayat, Lamantanda,
Tq.- Ashti & Dist.-Beed,
Through its Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2018
Parmeshwar Dagadu Rathod
Age-48 years, Occu.-Agriculture,
R/o-Harishchandra Pimpari,
Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of the Collector,
Nagar Road, Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Wadwani,
Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed.
4 Grampanchayat Harishchandra Pimpri,
Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed,
Through its Gram Sevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15369 OF 2017
Meenabai w/o Rajendra Gaikwad
Age-22 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Therla, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{26}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The District Collector,
Beed, Tal & Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahasildar
Patoda, Tal Patoda, Dist. Beed.
4 The Village Panchayat, Therla,
Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed.
Through its Gram-Sevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15371 OF 2017
Bhagwatrao s/o Sampatrao Sanap
Age-60 years, Occu.- Agri.,
R/o-Tagadgaon, Tq. Shirur (Ka),
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The District Collector
Beed, Tal & Dist. Beed.
3 The Tahasildar
Shirur (Ka), Tal. Shirur (Ka)
Dist. Beed.
4 The Village Panchayat, Tagadgaon,
Tq. Shirur (Ka), Dist. Beed.
Through its Gram-sevak. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{27}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14951 OF 2017
Smita w/o Mohan Choure
Age-31 years, Occu.-politician and agri.,
R/o- Khandala, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector,
Nagar Road, Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Beed
Tahsil Office, Nagar Road,
Beed.
4 Grampanchayat, Khandala
Ta. & Dist. Beed. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 237 OF 2018
Chandrakala s/o Prabhakar Khedkar
Age-47 years, Occu.- politician and agri.,
R/o-Tintarwani, Tq.- Shirur Kasar
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector,
Nagar Road, Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Shirur Kasar
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{28}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Tahsil Office, Shirur.
4 Grampanchayat, Tintarwani
Tq.-Shirur & Dist. Beed
Through its Gramsevak. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 828 OF 2018
Kantilal s/o Balbhim Gatkal
Age-48 years, Occu.- Agri.,
R/o. Waghluj, Tq.- Ashti,
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary Rural Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2 The Collector Beed,
Office of Collector,
Nagar Road, Beed.
3 The Tahsildar, Ashti
Tahsil Office, Ashti.
4 Grampanchayat, Waghluj
Tq.-Ashti & Dist. Beed
Through its Gramsevak. Respondents
Mrs. A.K. Gore, Mr. N.P. Bangar, Mr. S.K. Chavan, Mr. M.D. Gitte h/f Mr
N.P. Bangar, Mr. S.K. Naikwade, Mr. N.V. Gaware and Mr.S.P. Salgare, Mr.
R.P. Dhasek, Mr. Avinash D. Aghav, Mr. D.J. Choudhary, Mr.Vijay A.
Dhakne, Mr. Laxman M. Kulkarni, Mr. Mahesh S. Bhosale, Mr. Mahesh P.
Kale, Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocates for the petitioner
Mr. A.B. Girase, Govt. Pleader for State
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, Mr. S.S. Dande, Assistant Government Pleader for
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{29}
wp 209.18 & others.odt
Respondent State
Mr. S.S. Thombre advocate for caveator
_______________
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ
DATE : March 6th, 2018
JUDGMENT
(Per: R.M. Borde, J) 1 Writ Petitions No.15369/2017, 15371/2017, 14951/2017, 237/2018 and 828/2018 are not on board, and are taken on board at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners as according to them an identical issue is involved. 2 Heard.
3 Rule. With the consent of the parties petitions are taken-up for final disposal at admission stage.
4 The petitioner, in Writ Petition No.209/2018 is praying for declaration that she is entitled to cast her vote in the capacity of a member in addition to her right to exercise casting vote in the event of equality of votes in the meeting for election of Upa- sarpanch of Bansarola, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. It is also prayed by the petitioner to declare the communication dated 1.11.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 ::: {30} wp 209.18 & others.odt issued by the Department of Rural Development, Mumbai to be illegal and violative of provisions of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 as amended by Ordinance No.18 of 2017. 5 The petitioner is a directly elected Sarpanch of village Panchayat Bansarola. She is elected in the direct elections of the village Panchayat held in December, 2017. The amended provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act provide for election of Sarpanch by electors in the village directly; whereas the election of members take place simultaneously in observance of the existing provisions of the Act. The election to Upa-sarpanch of the village Panchayat was proposed to be held on 2.1.2018 in the first meeting of the village panchayat. The petitioner contends that the State of Maharashtra through the Rural Development Department has issued a circular to all the revenue authorities in the State, who are authorized to function as returning/election officers for the election of Upa-sarpanch, instructing them that the Sarpanch is not entitled to vote in the capacity of a member at the election of Upa-sarpanch and is entitled to exercise casting of vote in the event of equality of votes. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the communication, has approached this Court, seeking intervention with a view to facilitate the petitioner, who is directly elected Sarpanch of the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 ::: {31} wp 209.18 & others.odt village Panchayat to cast her vote at the elections of Upa- sarpanch in her capacity as a member of the village panchayat. 6 The vacation Court, while entertaining the petition on 1.1.2018 permitted the petitioner in the Writ Petition as well as all the similarly situate petitioners to cast vote at the elections of Upa-sarpanch in their capacity as member. It has been further directed that the results of the election of Upa-sarpanch shall be subject to the decision of the writ petitions in the event Upa- sarpanch gets elected by a margin of only one vote. The interim relief granted by the vacation Judge has been continued from time to time.
7 In sub-section 11 AAA of section 3 of the Act, a member has been defined as "a member duly elected as Member of Panchayat under section 11 and include the directly elected Sarpanch of Panchayat under section 30A-1-A. ". Clause 17 of section 3 of the Act defines Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch to mean a Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch elected under section 30A-1-A. 8 Section 33 of the Act relates to elections of Upa-sarpanch. It is provided in subsection 1 (after the enforcement of the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 ::: {32} wp 209.18 & others.odt amendment in the Act of 2017) that on the establishment of the Panchayat, for the first time, procedure under this Act or its reconstitution or establishment under sections 145 and 146, or on the expiry of the term of a panchayat, a meeting shall be called on the date fixed under sub section (1) of Section 28 by the (Collector), for the election of the Sarpanch and Upa- sarpanch. In the case where the offices of both the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch become vacant simultaneously, a meeting shall be called on the date fixed by the (Collector), for the election of the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch. Subsection 1(A) has been added by virtue of Amendment incorporated in 2017 which is reproduced below:-
" (1A) The election of the Sarpanch shall be held in accordance with the provisions of section 30A-1A of this Act."
Sub-section 2 of Section 33 has also been amended and after the amendment, subsection 2 reads thus:
" (2) The meeting called under subsection (1) shall be presided over by the Sarpanch and if the post of Sarpanch is vacant such officer as the (Collector) may by order appoint in this behalf. The officer aforesaid shall, when presiding over such meeting, have the powers and follow the procedure prescribed, but shall not have the right to vote.
Sub-section 3 of Section 33 reads, "no business other than the election of the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch shall be transacted at such meeting".
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{33} wp 209.18 & others.odt Subsection 4 of Section 33 (as inserted by virtue of amendment) reads:-
" (4) If, in the election of Upa-sarpanch there is an equality of votes, the Sarpanch shall have right to exercise casting vote, and if the post of Sarpanch is vacant, the result of elections shall be decided by lot drawn in the presence of the officer presiding in such manner as he may determine".
Subsection 5 :-
"(5) In the event of a dispute arising as to the validity of election of a ... Upasarpanch under subsection (1) 6[Sarpanch or officer presiding over such meeting or any member 3 * * * * may, within fifteen days from the date of the election, refer the dispute to the Collector for decision. An appeal against the decision of the Collector may, within fifteen days from the date of such decision, be filed before the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final. The Collector or Commissioner shall give his decision as far as possible within sixty days from the receipt of the reference, or as the case may be, appeal.]"
9 It is the contention of the petitioner that since the Sarpanch has been bestowed with the casting votes, that itself does not dis-entitle him from exercising his right to caste vote at the election of Upa-sarpanch. It is contended that the Sarpanch is a member of the village Panchayat by virtue of section 3(11- AAA) of the Act. It is also contended that the constitutional right conferred upon Sarpanch or Chairman of the village Panchayat to cast vote at the meeting of Panchayat cannot be taken away. ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{34} wp 209.18 & others.odt 10 It is the contention of the respondents that since the Chairman presides over the meeting convened for election of Upa-sarpanch, he is not expected to exercise his right to vote as a member. It is further contended that a Sarpanch has been vested with a right of casting vote and he is entitled to exercise such right in the event of equality of the votes. It is further contended that Sarpanch who functions as a Chairman while conducting meeting for election to Upa-sarpanch is expected to be a non-partisan member and as such, is entitled to exercise right to vote only in case of equality of votes. It is the contention of the respondents that the right to vote exercisable by Sarpanch is not taken away by virtue of the amendment incorporated in the Act but, Sarpanch has been conferred with the right of casting vote. It is further contended that Section 10 of the Act prescribes Constitution of Panchayat and by virtue of the amendment and incorporation of subsection 1-A, it is prescribed that Sarpanch elected under section 30A-1-A is an ex-officio member. A directly elected Sarpanch shall be an ex-officio member of the Panchayat. It is the contention of the respondents that since the Sarpanch is a ex-officio member, he shall not have a right to cast his regular vote.
11 The procedure for elections of Upa-sarpanch has been laid ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 ::: {35} wp 209.18 & others.odt down in section 33 of the Act. By virtue of the amended section 2, it has been provided that the meeting called under subsection 1 shall be presided over by the Sarpanch and if the post of Sarpanch is vacant, by such an officer as the Collector may appoint in that behalf. The prohibition in respect of exercise of right to vote is only operative against an officer appointed by the Collector to preside over the meeting. The prohibition contained in subsection 2 in respect of exercise of right to vote has been restricted to the officers appointed by the Collector and it does not specifically lay down that such prohibition operates as against the elected Sarpanch. Merely because the Sarpanch has been vested with casting vote, it does not dis-entitle him from exercising his right to vote at the meeting convened for election of Upa-sarpanch. There is no such prohibition incorporated in statute and as such, cannot be read to curtail right of directly elected Sarpanch.
12 Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch) Election Rules, 1965 provides for procedure for election which reads thus:-
" Rule 10 - Procedure for Election -
(1) If only candidate has been duly nominated for the office of the Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch, he shall be declared to have ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 ::: {36} wp 209.18 & others.odt been duly elected as Sarpanch or as the case may, Upa-
sarpanch.
(2) If more than one candidate have been so nominated, the Presiding Officer shall proceed to elect the Sarpanch or as the case may, Upa-sarpanch. The voting at such election shall be by show of hands. If, however, any member present at the meeting so demands, the voting shall be by ballot. The candidate who obtains the highest number of votes shall be declared to have been duly elected as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa- sarpanch. When any equality of valid votes is found to exist between any two or more candidates and the addition of one vote will entitle any of them to be declared as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-sarpanch, the determination of the candidate to whom such additional vote shall be deemed to have been given shall be made by lot to be drawn by the Presiding Officer in such manner as he shall determine. " 13 The procedure prescribed under the Elections Rules contemplates voting at the elections of Upa-sarpanch and it has been further provided that the candidate who obtains highest number of votes shall be declared to have been duly elected. Though the Rules provide for draw of lots in the event of equality of votes by the Presiding Officer, however, in view of amendment ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 ::: {37} wp 209.18 & others.odt incorporated in subsection 4 of section 33, the Sarpanch shall have the right to caste vote and the substantial provision incorporated in the Act will prevail over the Rules. The procedure prescribed in the Rules in the event of equality of votes at the election of Upa-sarpanch cannot be pressed into service in view of the specific provision made under section 33 of the Act. The contentions raised by the respondents that in view of provisions of Section 10(1)(A) of the Act, the President elected under section 30-A-1-A shall be ex- officio member and shall not have a right to vote and as such, shall not caste vote for electing Upa- sarpanch is devoid of substance. It must be understood that by virtue of section 3 (11-AAA), a directly elected Sarpanch is deemed to be a member of the Panchayat and as such he or she is entitled to exercise right conferred on a member including the right to cast vote at the meeting for elections of Upa-sarpanch. 14 Section 35 of the Act prescribes the procedure for initiating motion of no-confidence. All the members of the village Panchayat including Sarpanch & Upa-sarpanch are bestowed with the right to vote at the meeting convened to express no confidence on the Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch. If the argument advanced by the respondents is to be accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation. As per the contention of the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 ::: {38} wp 209.18 & others.odt respondents, Sarpanch may have right to caste vote at the meeting convened for expressing no confidence over Upa- sarpanch, but shall not be entitled to exercise right as a member, while electing Upa-sarpanch which appears to be illogical and beyond the express provisions of the Act. There is absolutely nothing in the Act including the amended provisions to limit exercise of powers by the Sarpanch. There is no specific bar against the Sarpanch in respect of exercise of his power to cast vote at the meeting convened to elect UpaSarpanch under section 33 of the Act.
15 Counsel appearing for the petitioners rely upon the provision for article 243-C(4) of the Constitution of India to contend that a chairman of the Panchayat whether or not chosen by direct election from the territorial constituency in the Panchayat shall have right to vote in the meeting of the Panchayat.
16 Sub-article 4 of Article 243-C reads as under:-
"(4) The Chairperson of a Panchayat and other members of a Panchayat whether or not chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area shall have the right to vote in the meetings of the Panchayats."::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{39} wp 209.18 & others.odt 17 Section 33 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act contemplates convening a meeting for electing UpaSarpanch of the Panchayat. The Sarpanch chosen by a direct election from the territorial constituency shall have a right to vote at the meeting in view of sub-article 4 of Article 243-C of the Constitution of India. Right conferred upon the Chair-person and the members to cast vote at the meeting of the Panchayat under the constitution is unqualified and is not restricted. The respondents contend that the right of the Sarpanch to cast vote at the meeting for election of Upa-sarpanch is not taken away but he has been bestowed with casting vote which he may exercise in the event of equality of votes and as such the impugned communication is not illegal or unconstitutional, nor the direction issued to the revenue authorities by the State can be said to be illegal.
18 The argument advanced by the respondents is devoid of merit for the reason that the casting vote conferred on Sarpanch by virtue of provisions of subsection 4 of section 33 is an additional vote exercisable by the Sarpanch apart from his legal right to cast vote as a member. The contention of the respondent that there is only restricted right conferred on the Sarpanch while ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 ::: {40} wp 209.18 & others.odt presiding over a meeting convened for election of Upa-sarpanch under section 33 is opposed to the constitutional provisions contained in article 243-C(4). The right conferred upon chair- person of the Panchayat under article 243-C(4) is an unqualified right and cannot be construed as a restrictive right as contended by the respondents. If at all the argument advanced by the respondents is to be accepted and provision is construed as the right conferred on a Sarpanch to cast vote at the election of Upa- sarpanch in the meeting convened under section 33 of the Act to be restricted right, it will lead us to draw logical conclusion that the provisions incorporated by virtue of amended Act itself is oppose to constitutional mandate contained in article 243-C(4). The intention of the legislature while bringing the amendment was clear to confer an additional right on the directly elected Sarpanch. While interpreting legislative provisions, a care shall have to be taken to bring the provisions within the ambit of constitutionality in stead of putting an interpretation which would lead to render the provision itself in conflict with the constitutional provision. If the interpretation put forth by the respondent is accepted, it would render the amended provision conferring right of casting vote on the directly elected Sarpanch to be in conflict with the constitutional provision and such interpretation shall not be accepted.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:04 :::
{41} wp 209.18 & others.odt 19 The contention of the respondents that the right conferred on Sarpanch to exercise casting vote takes away his entitlement to cast vote as a Member is devoid of merit. Black's Law Dictionary defines casting vote to mean "deciding vote cast by the chair of a deliberative assembly when the votes are tied". Oxford Dictionary defines casting vote as "the vote given by the person in charge of an official meeting to decide an issue when votes on each side are equal". The Featuring Black's Law Dictionary, second edition describes casting vote thus:
" Where the votes of a deliberative assembly or legislative body are equally divided on any question or motion, it is the privilege of the presiding officer to cast one vote (if otherwise he would not be entitled to any vote) on either side, or to cast one additional vote, if he has already voted as a member of the body. This is called the "casting vote". By the common law, a casting vote some times signifies the single vote of a person who never votes; but, in the case of an equality, some times the double vote of a person who first votes with the rest, and then, upon an equality, creates a majority by giving a second vote. "
20 It is thus clear that merely because Sarpanch has been conferred with casting of votes, it does not take away his entitlement to exercise the right to vote as a Member of the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:05 ::: {42} wp 209.18 & others.odt Village Panchayat. Such an interpretation would be in consonance with the constitutional provisions of Article 243-C-4 of the Constitution of India.
21 The respondents, for furthering their arguments and to support the interpretation put forth by them have relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the mater of S.K. Gupta & another versus K.P. Jain and another (1979 STPL(LE) SC
734), as well as B.Premanand and Ors. Vs. Mohal Koikal and Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 1925).
The decisions cited at the bar lay down general principles in respect of interpretation of statute. However, those are of little help for the respondents.
22 While interpreting a statute, the Court keeps lien against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. It is well settled that where the language of a statute leads to manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, the Court has the power so to read it as to carry out the obvious intention of the Legislature. (M Pentiah versus Veeramallapa Muddala 1961 SC 1107).
23 A statute or an enabling provision therein, must be so ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:05 ::: {43} wp 209.18 & others.odt construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle "Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat". It is on application of this principle that every effort should be made by a Court to find a meaning, looking at substance and not mere form, and that difficulties in interpretation do not make a provision bad as not being capable of interpretation, so long as a definite meaning can properly be extracted.
24 In the instant case, if the construction as canvassed by the respondents is to be accepted, the interpretation would lead to a conclusion that the amended provisions restrict the right of the Sarpanch to cast vote at the meeting of village Panchayat which would obviously be in conflict with the provisions of Article 243- C-4 and such an interpretation shall have to be avoided. A statute has to be interpreted in such a manner so as to bring it within the realm of constitutionality. Any interpretation which renders the provision futile or in conflict with the constitutional provision shall be avoided.
25 For the reasons recorded above, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed and same are accordingly allowed. The impugned communication issued by the State Government dated 1.11.2017 is quashed and set aside. It is declared that a directly elected ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:05 ::: {44} wp 209.18 & others.odt Sarpanch is entitled to exercise right conferred upon an elected member of Panchayat including the right to cast vote at the meeting convened to elect Upa-sarpanch of village Panchayat. 26 Rule is accordingly made absolute.
27 There shall be no order as to costs.
28 Pending Civil applications stand disposed of.
(K.K. SONAWANE, J) ( R.M. BORDE, J )
vbd
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2018 00:25:05 :::