Raman Ramsingh Pawar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 16 July, 2025
11. The above-referred undisputed aspects show that, the
mandatory procedure as contemplated under the law was followed
prior to issuing the impugned Notifcation. It is explicit from the
above aspects that, the impugned Notifcation was the result of
'consultation' as contemplated under the provisions of Section 4 of
the Act of 1959. The Full Bench of this Court in Sheshrao Bhaurao
Jadhav Vs. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and
Other ; 1982 Mh. L.J. 787, interpreted the term 'consultation' as
provided under Section 4 of the Act of 1959, and observed in
Paragraph No.6 that, the act does not set out any particular 'concept'
or mode of such 'consultation'. Ordinarily and broadly it means
communication of the views between the consulted (Panchayat
concerned) and the consulter, the Commissioner, on the subject and
further exchange of thoughts thereabout. The extent, nature and
10 WP-8260-2022.odt
importance of any consultation must depend on the subject, object
and the context thereof, under a given statute. The Group Village
Panchayat gave indication of its views on the subject of such
separation and break up of the Panchayat, by its resolution dated 2 nd
September, 1975. The same was communicated to the Commissioner.
The resolution was unanimous. It was supported by the Standing
Committee of the Zilla Parishad. The Commissioner accepted the
same. He had presumably no reasons to object to warrant further
exchange of views or discussion. The process of consultation came to
an end with the acceptance of the Panchayat's resolution and the
view by the Commissioner. Direct discussion is not an indispensable
ingredient of any consultation, nor lengthy correspondence can be
held to be 'must' when it is found to be unnecessary in a given case.