JAYSHREE NITIN GIDHANEversusVIJAY EKNATH NARWADE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38506-DB


                                                1                  910-CA-9082-26.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9082 OF 2026
                                           WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9083 OF 2026
                                      IN WP/5656/2026

                                      JAYSHREE NITIN GIDHANE
                                             VERSUS
                               VIJAY EKNATH NARWADE AND OTHERS
                                                ...
              Mr. Yuvraj V. Kakde, Advocate for Applicant
              Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State
              Ms. V. P. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.1
              Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP
                                                ...

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                       DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026

              PER COURT :

              Civil Application No. 9082 Of 2026:-

              1.           By this application, the applicant seeks vacating and/or

              modification of the interim order dated 21/07/2026 passed in Writ

              Petition No.5656/2026. It is her contention that before passing of

              the said order charge was taken over by her on 05/06/2026. She

              further submits that her appointment is in accordance with the

              orders of this Court.


              2.           Heard learned advocate for applicant, learned advocate

              for respondent No.1 - original petitioner, learned advocate for Zilla

              Parishad and learned AGP for State.




              SVH
                                    2                    910-CA-9082-26.odt


3.           Learned AGP submits that praecipe of all such petitions

wherein similar challenge is raised is moved before the Acting Chief

Justice for clubbing of all the matters and order is awaited on the

same.


4.           Learned    advocate    for   respondent   No.1    –   original

petitioner submits that appointment of applicant as Administrator is

contrary to the letter and spirit of the order dated 26/03/2026

passed by this Court [Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S.

Venegavkar, JJ.] in Writ Petition No.3032 of 2026 and connected

matters.


5.           With the assistance of learned advocates appearing for

the respective parties, we have perused the interim order and

documents placed on record. We find merit in the contention of the

original petitioner that appointment of applicant as Administrator is

contrary to the letter and spirit of the order dated 26/03/2026.

6.           Learned advocate for applicant has relied upon the

observations made by the Apex Court in the order dated 20/05/2026

passed in Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 [Special Leave Petition (C) No.

___ of 2026] [Diary No(s).27798 of 2026], which reads thus,

        “5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the
        respondents and having considered the matter in detail, we
        deem it appropriate to modify the order impugned before us,
        by directing appointment of Administrator for the Chhtrapati
        Sambhaji Nagar District and issue necessary Notification. The
        Administrator so appointed shall abide by the directions
        issued by the High Court in the order impugned before us.


SVH
                                      3                     910-CA-9082-26.odt


         6.    It is made clear that except the above modification, the
         order passed by the High Court shall remain unaltered.”

               According to him, his appointment as Administrator is in

consonance with the said directions. We are unable to agree with

the said submission.

7.             This Court in clear terms has observed in the order

dated 26/03/2026 that,

          “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.“
          .
          .
          .
                                      ORDER
         (a)    ...
         (b)    …
         (c)    In all districts where, as on 27 th 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 20 th
         February, 2026 until further orders of this Court.”


8.             In our view, appointment of applicant is contrary to the

direction given by this Court in clause ‘(c)’ of the above operative

order.


SVH
                                    4                     910-CA-9082-26.odt


9.           It is brought to our notice that though the charge was

given to applicant, the same is now withdrawn under the orders of

Chief Executive Officer. Be that as it may. We find no merit in the

civil application. The civil application is, therefore, rejected.


Civil Application No. 9083 Of 2026:-

10.          For the reasons stated in the civil application, the civil

application is allowed. Respondent Petitioner shall add applicant as

party respondent in the writ petition. Addition be carried out

forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Y. V. Kakade waives service for the

added respondent.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




SVH