Bombay High Court
SAYAJI SONU MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRIN. SEC. RURAL DEV. AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the impugned minutes fixing reservation were contrary to the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act and the Election Rules and therefore quashed them.
Summary
The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste member elected to Pansai Grampanchayat (2019‑2024), challenged the reservation of the Sarpanch post for his panchayat, arguing that the reservation for Scheduled Castes should apply for the period 2024‑2029 and that the Tahsildar’s subsequent reservation of the post for Scheduled Tribes (2025‑2030) violated the rotation provisions. The respondents, including the State and the Collector, contended that the reservations were made in accordance with the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Up‑Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. The Court examined Sections 10, 10A, 30(4)(c) of the Act and Rule 2A(4) with its provisos, and relied on the earlier decision in Narendra Subhash Pelmahale v. State of Maharashtra. It held that the minutes fixing reservation were contrary to the statutory rotation requirement, quashed the impugned minutes, and ordered a fresh reservation exercise by the Collector. Both writ petitions were allowed and disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- The validity of the reservation of the Sarpanch post for Scheduled Castes in Pansai Grampanchayat for the period 2021‑2025 under the rotation rule.
- Whether the subsequent reservation of the post for Scheduled Tribes for 2025‑2030 violates Rule 2A(4) and its provisos.
- Whether the Tahsildar/SDO had jurisdiction to fix the reservation.
- Interpretation of Sections 10, 10A, 30(4)(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 in relation to reservation and rotation.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 — s. 10, 10A, 151, 30(4)(c)
Subjects
- reservation
- Scheduled Caste
- Scheduled Tribe
- Panchayat
- rotation principle
- Rule 2A
- writ petition
- mandamus
- certiorari
- Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
- election law
Judgment
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
2026:BHC-AS:36393-DB
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11311 OF 2025
Sayaji Sonu More … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Dept. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Sandeep S. Patade for the petitioner.
Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mrs. P.M.T. Deshpande, AGP for the State.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 1 SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs:
“a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
and/or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus or certiorari thereby calling upon the records and the
proceeding of the minutes of meetings dated 22.04.2025 and 15.07.2025 from
the office of respondent nos. 2 and 4 and after going through the validity,
legality and propriety of the impugned orders/minutes of meetings, be pleased
to quash and set aside the said impugned minutes of meetings/orders dated
22.04.2025 and 15.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Tahsildar, Mangaon.
b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and
declare that the reservation of Scheduled Caste to the post of Sarpanch fixed for
Pansai Grampanchayat as per the minutes of meeting dated 21.01.2021 passed
by the Ld. Tahsildar, Mangaon is valid, correct and legal and the same may be
directed to be given to the said Pansai Grampanchayat for upcoming five years
period.”
2. The petitioner states that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste and was
elected as a member of Pansai Grampanchayat, District Raigad for the period
from 2019 to 2024, in the election held in the year 2019. It is the petitioner’s
Page 1 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
case that, as per Section 10 of the Village Panchayat Act. 1958 and more
particularly Rule 2A of the Mumbai Village Panchayata (Sarpanch and Upa-
Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, reservation to the post of Sarpanch is required to
be made on rotation basis amongst the Village Panchayats in a particular Taluka.
It is the petitioner’s case that the Tahsildar, Mangaon had held a meeting on 21
January, 2021 and declared reservation for the Scheduled Caste in respect of 74
Grampanchayats for the period from 2021 to 2025, pursuant to which Pansai
Grampanchayat was granted such reservation for the period from 2021 to 2025.
However, according to the petitioner, such reservation ought to have been granted
for the period from 2024 to 2029, as the election for the period from 2019 to
2024 had already been held and no reservation for Scheduled Castes had been
granted to Pansai Grampanchayat, though it was entitled to such reservation.
3. The petitioner has further contended that, on 22 April, 2025, the
Tahsildar again held a meeting for fixing the reservation for the Scheduled Caste
to the Grampanchayats when reservation was not granted to the Pansai
Grampanchayat. Accordingly, on 9 May, 2025, the petitioner raised objections to
the minutes of the meeting held on 22 April, 2024, whereby, according to him, an
incorrect reservation had been fixed. The said objections were addressed to the
Secretary as also to the Election Commission. Similar objections were raised by
the petitioner on 13 May, 2025 in respect of the Minutes of meeting dated 22
May, 2025, which were submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangaon. By
the impugned communication dated 19 May, 2025, the petitioner was informed
that the authority concerned lacked jurisdiction to take decision on the objections.
Page 2 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner raised objections before the Tahsildar, who was
competent to fix the reservation, however, there was no response from the
Tahsildar. The petitioner as also the Law Development Officer raised objections
to the minutes of the meeting dated 22 May, 2025, which was addressed by its
communication dated 14 May, 2025 to the District Collector. In the meantime,
on 16 June, 2025, the State Government issued a notification directing the
District Collector to fix the reservation for 74 Village Panchayats in Mangaon
Taluka. In pursuance thereto, it is the the petitioner’s case that on 15 July, 2025,
the Tahsildar held a meeting and again fixed the reservation, excluding Pansai
Grampanchayat. On 22 July, 2025, the petitioner raised objections before the
Tahsildar to the minutes of the meeting held by Tahsildar thereby fixing incorrect
reservation to four Grampanchayats excluding Pansai Grampanchayat. It is in
these circumstances, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent nos. 2
and 4 have failed to grant reservation to candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes to the post of Sarpanch of Pansai Grampanchayat for a period of five years
without considering the provisions of Section 10A of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act as also the respondents have failed to grant such reservation to
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes for election to the post of Sarpanch
of Pansai Grampanchayat for the five years period in the ensuing elections of the
Village Panchayat which would take place under the provisions of Section 2A of
the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rule 1964.
Page 3 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
5. Reply affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5 by Shri
Dasharath Dnyaneshwar Kale, Tahsildar, Mangaon, District Raigad justifying the
Collector’s order dated 22 April, 2025 of the SDO and Competent Authority. It
is contended in the said reply that every 5 years elections for electing the
Sarpanch takes place by following the process as prescribed under the Bombay
Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rule 1964. It is
contended that the election of the Pansai Grampanchayat was held for the period
2019 and ended on 2024. It is stated that said period starts during the reservation
period of 2016 to 2020 and ends during the reservation period 2021 to 2025. It
is further stated that the period 2016-2020 , the Pansai Grampanchayat did not
have a reservation for Scheduled Caste, however, during the period 2021 to 2025,
the said Grampanchayat was declared to have reservation in Scheduled Caste. It is
contended that admittedly under Section 151 of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act, an Administrator came to be appointed qua the Grampanchayat
and as such no election had taken place before the expiry of the reservation period
2021 to 2025. It is next contended that as per the Bombay Village Panchayat
(Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rules 1964 and the Bombay Village
Panchayat (Number of members, division into wards and reservation of seat
Rules), 1966, four Grampanchayats from a taluka could be granted reservations
for scheduled castes in each period of 5 years. It is stated that since such
reservation was granted to Pansai Grampanchayat for the period 2021 to 2025,
the said Grampanchayat cannot be granted same reservation until by rotation it is
again due after granting such reservation to the remaining Grampanchayat. It is
Page 4 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
hence contended that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted since
the reservation was granted to the said Grampanchayat for the period 2021 to
2025 and the same has lapsed. It is also contended that the Tahsildar as well as
the SDO and Competent Authority have followed procedure prescribed by law
and as such action taken by both the authorities is legal and valid.
6. There is an additional affidavit in reply by the Tahsildar, Mangaon dated 5
December, 2025 to place on record certain addition information, which is stated
was inadvertently not brought to the notice of this Court and after taking charge
of Tahsildar at Mangaon, some additional information was obtained and it was
thought appropriate to place the same on record and hence this additional
affidavit was filed. The relevant contents of the additional affidavit in reply are
required to be noted, which reads thus:
“2. I say that, the Government of Maharashtra issued two Government
Resolutions dated 05.03.2025 and 13.06.2025. Furthermore, pursuant to the
order of the Collector Raigad dated 07.07.2025, as referred at “Exhibit K” to the
Writ Petition (please refer Page No. 60-61 of the Writ Petition), copies of the
above mentioned Government Resolutions dated 05.03.2025 and 13/06/2025
are annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit "R1" and Exhibit "R2", respectively.
3. I say that, as per notification published in Maharashtra Govt. Gazette
no.4b dated 05/03/2025 and 13/06/2025, and as per order of Res. No. 3 dt.
07/07/2025, reservation for the post of sarpanch, in Gram panchayats in
Mangaon Tahsil were declared on 15/07/2025. A copy of Official Gazette dated
05/03/2025 and 13/06/2025 is annexed at Exhibit "R3". and Exhibit "R4"
respectively. A Copy of order dt. 07/07/2025 issued by the Res. No.3 is annexed
at Exhibit "R5".
4. I say that the reservation for the post of Sarpanch in Grampanchayats within
Mangaon Tahsil was officially declared on 15/07/2025. This declaration took
place in the presence of political party representatives, Grampanchayat members,
and the general public. During the meeting, it was declared that the position of
Sarpanch for Grampanchayat Pansai would be reserved for candidates belonging
to the Scheduled Tribe category.
5. I state that the declaration of reservation for the post of Sarpanch was granted
with all due procedure and prior reservation position for the said post. I state that
previous reservation details for the post of Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Pansai are
as follows:
Page 5 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
Sr.no. Period Reservations Reservations
declaration date
1 2010 to 2015 General 09.08.2010
2 2016 to 2020 General Woman 09.06.2015
3 2021 to 2025 Scheduled Caste 21.01.2021
4 2025 to 2030 Scheduled Tribe 15.07.2025
6. In accordance with the above-mentioned information, reservation for
the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste was granted for the period from
2021 to 2025. After the previous reservation period ended, Respondent No.5
held a meeting on 15/07/2025 and declared the new reservations in accordance
with the instructions given in Exhibits "R1" and "R2" and "R5" herein.
7. I say that the All Grampanchayats in Mangaon Taluka received
reservations by rotation. Since the Sarpanch post in Pansai Grampanchayat was
already reserved for a Scheduled Caste Candidate for 2020 to 2025, then same
reservation cannot be repeated for next term. The rotation has already covered
four Grampanchayats i.e. Vile, Nagaon, Sai & Nijampur are granted Schedule
Caste reservation for the Sarpanch post. / further state that the same reservation
cannot be allotted for next ten consecutive years to the Scheduled Caste category.
8. While announcing Sarpanch reservation on 15/07/2025, as per sub-
section (4) (5) 6) of Mumbai Gram Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch)
Election Rules, 1964, while determining the Sarpanch reservation for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories for the period 2010-2015,
2016-2020 and 2021-2025 in descending order of the percentage of population
as per the 2011 Census, reservation has been announced for the eligible Gram
Panchayats in descending order, excluding the Gram Panchayats reserved earlier
for that category. In this, Pansai Gram Panchayat has been announced for the
Scheduled Tribes category for the period of 2025 to 2030.
9. The said reservation process was carried out as per Maharashtra
Government Gazette Extraordinary Part-4, dated 05/03/2025 (Exhibit "R1"),
and Maharashtra Government Gazette Extraordinary Part-4, dated 13/06/2025
(Exhibit "R2"). According to the aforesaid notification, all previous notifications
regarding this matter published earlier in this regard have been superseded.
10. I further state that reservations for all Grampanchayats scheduled to hold
elections between 2025 and 2030 have now been finalized under new
notifications issued on 05/03/2025 and 13/06/2025 Before issuing the order
dated 07/07/2025, the District Collector of Raigad requested clarification from
the Government regarding reservations for Sarpanch positions in
Grampanchayats where elections were not held in 2024. Copy of said letter dated
24/03/2025 is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit "R6".
11. The Rural Development Department replied in its letter dated
28/03/2025, specified that all previous notifications had been revoked and
reservations are now set according to the new notification issued on 05/03/2025
for all Grampanchayats with elections from 2025 to 2030. According to the
mentioned notification, all previous notifications regarding this matter have been
replaced. Reservations for all Grampanchayats scheduled for elections from 2025
to 2030 are now determined by the new notifications issued on 05/03/2025 and
Page 6 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
13/06/2025 Hereto annexed and marked as "Exhibit R7" is the Copy of Letter
dated 28/03/2025 issued by the Rural Development Department. Hence
reservation for the post of Sarpanch has been announced for the period 2025 to
2030 as per the notification dated 05/03/2025 and 13/06/2025. Even though
the elections to the grampanchayat Pansai did not take place during the period of
2020-2025 and the reservation announced for the post of sarpanch for the
period of 2020-2025 was not availed by the grampanchayat Pansai, as the
Petitioner has not challenged the said notifications which laid down the
procedure to be followed while announcing the reservations for the post of
sarpanch for the period of 2025 to 2030, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.
By taking into consideration all these facts & Circumstances and by following all
the orders, Guidelines and Rules and after completing legal and due procedure,
the reservation was granted to Schedule Tribe Candidate in Pansai
Grampanchayat for Sarpanch post.”
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find from the record
that the Collector Raigad, in the context in hand, had addressed a letter dated 24
March, 2025 to the Additional Collector, Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department in regard to the reservation to the post of Sarpanch to
the implemented in Raigad District. The contents of the said letter are required
to be noted, which reads thus:
(Translation of a photocopy of a LETTER, typewritten in Marathi)
Exhibit – R-6
Collector Office, Raigad-Alibag
General Administration Department
(Near Hirakot Lake, Court road, Alibag, Tal. Alibag,
District Raigad, PIN Code No. 402201.
Telephone No. 02141 – 222118, Fax No. 222025, 227451
E-Mail : [email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Sa.Sha./Desk-1/B-4, Sarpanch Reservation/2025 Date : 24.03.2025
To,
The Under Secretary,
Rural Development and Water Conservation Department,
Government of Maharashtra.
Subject :- Regarding fixing of reservation for the post of Sarpanch of
Grampanchayat.
Reference :- 1) Government Gazette, Extraordinary Part IV-B,
dated 05/03/2020.
Page 7 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
2) Government Gazette, Extraordinary Part IV-B,
dated 05/03/2025
With reference to the subject noted hereinabove, it is hereby submitted that
pursuant to the Notification referred to hereinabove at Sr. No. 2, the
reservation for the posts of Sarpanch for the Elections of Grampanchayats in
Raigad District the terms of which are expiring, has been notified and fixed for
a period of 5 years from the date 05/03/2025 to the date 04/03/2030 as
under :-
Total No. of Scheduled Scheduled Backward class Open category
Gram Castes Tribes of citizens
Panchayats
Open Women Open Women Open Women Open Women
810 33 17 124 62 219 110 434 217
Previously, pursuant to the Notification referred to hereinabove at Sr.
No. 1, the reservation for the posts of Sarpanch for the then total number of
809 Grampanchayats whose terms were expiring during the period from the
date 05/03/2020 to 04/03/2025 has been fixed.
However, from out of the said total number of 809 erstwhile
Grampanchayats, the terms of 250 Grampanchayats expired by the month of
February, 2025; however, General Elections for these Grampanchayats have
not yet been conducted. Therefore, if the reservation for the post of Sarpanch
for these Grampanchayats is fixed in accordance with the reservation notified
under the Notification referred to hereinabove at Sr. No. 2 for the period from
the year 2025 to the year 2030, they will be deprived of the benefit of the
reservation notified under the Notification at Reference No. 1 for the term
from the year 2020 to the year 2025.
Therefore, this Office is of the view that while fixing the reservation for
the post of Sarpanch for 810 Grampanchayats for the term from the date
05/03/2025 to the date 04/03/2030, the previously notified reservation for the
period from the year 2020 to the year 2025, for the post of Sarpanch in respect
of 250 Grampanchayats where the last general elections could not be
conducted, should be kept intact and the reservation for the post of Sarpanch
should be fixed for the remaining 560 Grampanchayats.
Therefore, it is requested that necessary guidance may be given and
approval in this regard may kindly be granted.
(Kishan N. Jawale)
Collector, Raigad”
8. The said letter has been responded by the State Government by its letter
dated 28 March, 2025 as addressed to the Collector inter alia stating that in
regard to the elections to Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch under the 1964 Rules, the
Page 8 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
Collector is Competent Authority and he would be required to take appropriate
decision in that regard and report of the steps taken and compliance would be
required to be forwarded to the State Government. The said letter is also required
to be noted, which read thus:
(Translation of a photocopy of a LETTER, typewritten in Marathi)
(Ministerial Services)
Government of Maharashtra
Rural Development Department
Bandhkam Bhavan, 25 Merzban Street, Mumbai 400001.
Telephone No. 022-22839924 E-mail : (Illegible)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number : G.E.-2025/M.No.54/P.R.-2 Date : 28th March, 2025
To,
The Collector,
Alibag-Raigad, Sindhudurg, Dhule.
Subject :- Regarding giving guidance for fixing of reservation for the post of
Sarpanch.
Reference :- 1) Your Letter No. G.B./Desk-1/W-4/Sarpanch Reservation /
2025, dated 24.03.2025.
2) Your Letter No.G.B./Desk-1(3)/W-4/Sarpanch Reservation
/03/ 2024, dated 24.03.2025
3) Your Letter No. C/Desk-5/G.E./W.S./209/2025, dated
25.03.2025
4) No. Petition-2023/M.No.162/P.R.2, Maharashtra Government
Gazette, Extra-ordinary Part Four – B, Extra-ordinary Number
468, Notification dated 25th November, 2024
5) No. G.E.-2025/M.No.13/P.R.2, Maharashtra Government
Gazette, Extra-ordinary Part Four – B, Extra-ordinary Number
87, Notification dated 5th March, 2025.
Respected Sir,
In connection with your letters referred to hereinabove at Sr.No.1 to 3 on
the above-mentioned subject, your attention is invited towards the Notification
referred to hereinabove at Sr.No.5, that has been published. It is explicitly
mentioned that all Notifications previously issued in connection with this subject
matter are superseded vide this Notification and the present Notification is being
published in the Government Gazette for a period of five years from the date of its
publication in the Government Gazette.
In accordance with the provisions under the Mumbai Village Panchayats
(Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, the Collector is the
Competent Authority to fix the reservation for the post of Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat-wise, in the district concerned. Therefore, as clarified under the said
Notification, you are requested to take necessary further steps at your level and to
submit the report of the action taken in that regard to the Government as well as to
Page 9 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
the State Election Commission.
(B. M. Asole)
Under Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra.
9. We may also refer that this Court had an occasion to consider the
controversy in regard to the applicability of the said rules and more particularly
the principle of rotation which would be required to be followed in the
proceedings of Narendra Subhash Pelmahale vs. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors.1, in which the Court considering the provisions of 2A(4) of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 and the
statutory scheme surrounding the same, made the following observations:
16. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that any election is a
creature of the statute under which it is governed. Thus, having due regard to
the fact that the process of reservation of the office of Sarpanch of Gram
Panchayat is governed by the provisions of the Act and the said Rules,
particularly proviso to Rule 2A (4) thereof, we examine the rival contentions
from the said perspective.
17. A plain reading of the provisos to Rule 2A(4) leaves no manner of doubt as
to the legislative intent. The first proviso expressly stipulates that the draw of
lots in respect of Women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and the Backward Class of Citizens shall be conducted only amongst those
offices of Sarpanch which are already reserved for the respective Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Class of Citizens, as the case may be.
Further, the second proviso to the above Rule provides that while rotating such
offices in the subsequent elections of the Panchayats, where the said offices
were earlier reserved for elections for women (including the women belonging
to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and the category of backward class of
citizens) shall be excluded in all such Panchayat reservations of offices by
rotation. Therefore, the lots could be drawn only in respect of offices of
Sarpanchas reserved for the backward class of citizens and the same principle
could not be applied for all offices of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats as
sought to be contended by learned Addl. GP on behalf of the Respondent
State. Once this being the case, the principle of rotation as envisaged in
proviso to Rule 2A (4) had to be applied for the office of the other Sarpanchas
belonging to other Gram Panchayats, which mandates that once for the earlier
period the post of Sarpanch is reserved under the women category, for the
subsequent period such post had to necessarily filled in by a candidate from
the Open (General) category.
1 Writ Petition No. 12576 of 2025 decided on 14 July, 2026
Page 10 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
18. Thus, the statutory mandate contained in Rule 2A (4) of the said Rules has
not been adhered to by the concerned SDOs’ in the present case. The office of
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, which had already been reserved for the Women
category during the immediately preceding term, has once again been reserved
for the Women category. This would be in clear disregard of the principle of
rotation as per the second proviso to Rule 2A (4). The impugned action,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
19. We are also unable to accept the reliance placed by the learned Addl. GP
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Ramdas Patil (supra). The
said decision arose in an entirely different fact pattern. The issue before the
Supreme Court pertained to reservation of the office of Mayor, which had
been earmarked for the Backward Class of Citizens for a term of two and a half
years commencing from June 2021. The grievance was to the effect that the
office, since the year 2003, been reserved only for the Backward Class of
Citizens and not for the Scheduled Castes. The Supreme Court was not called
upon to interpret the provisions of Rule 2A (4) of the said Rules or the scheme
governing reservation of the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat under the
Act. The facts of the said case has no relevance to the facts of the present case
and hence would not assist learned Addl. GP to advance his case further. Also,
we are of the view that drawing of lots which is to be considered in regard to all
such seats which are at par, does not change the substantive law, which
mandates that rotation for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is
something which needs to be followed in the Election process of Gram
Panchayats.
20. We are further not in agreement with the reliance placed by learned Addl.
G.P. on the provisions of Section 30(4)(c) of the Act to contend that if the
post of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is not reserved for the women
category for the election term from 2025 to 2030 and instead kept for Open
(General) Category, the same will defeat the legislative intent to keep 50%
reservation for women, inasmuch as the said section only mandates/specifies as
to in what manner the reservation for the post of the Sarpanch of Gram
Panchayat has to be made. The said section has to be read holistically. Also the
proviso to Rule 2A (4) of the Act which categorically provides for rotation to
the post of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, cannot be overlooked. Hence by
adherence to the requirement of the Rule does not in any way dilute the 50%
reservation for women but only prescribes the manner in which the post of the
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat has to be filled in for every successive term. The
interpretation thus sought to be placed by learned Addl. GP on the provisions
of Section 30(4)(c) of the Act hence cannot be accepted.”
10. By making the aforesaid observations, the following operative order was
passed in the said petition whereby Minutes of Meeting dated 30 July, 2025 were
quashed and set aside.
“21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that the impugned
actions of the respective SDOs are contrary to the provisions of the Act and
the Rules and, therefore, deserves to be interfered in the present proceedings.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:
Page 11 of 12
1 September, 2026
26.WP11311_2025.DOC
ORDER
i) The minutes of the meeting/order dated 30th July 2025 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer in Writ Petition No. 12576 of 2025 are
quashed and set aside. The minutes of the meeting dated 14 May
2026 impugned in Writ Petition No. 8030 of 2026 are also quashed
and set aside.
ii) The Collector, Nashik, shall undertake a fresh exercise for
determination of reservation of the office of Sarpanch in respect of
Gram Panchayat Mouje Pade in Writ Petition No. 12576 of 2025
and Gram Panchayat Kalher in Writ Petition No. 8030 of 2026,
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act, 1958 and the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
(Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 and particularly
the provisions of Rule 2A(4) read with the provisos. The Collector
shall complete the said exercise and issue appropriate consequential
directions by treating the office of Sarpanch in the respective Gram
Panchayats as falling in the Open (General) Category, if otherwise
permissible in law, within a period of six weeks from the date on
which this judgment is uploaded.
iii) Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed of
in the aforesaid terms. No costs.”
11. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Collector has now
been held to be a Competent Authority, he would be required to take appropriate
decision as already set out in the communication dated 28 March, 2026 by the
State Government addressed to the Collector. We, accordingly, direct the
Collector to undertake appropriate consideration of the applicability of rules and
various Government directives in taking a decision on the reservation to be
applied for the post of Sarpanch strictly in accordance with law. Let this entire
exercise be concluded within a period of four weeks and in any event, before the
elections to the said Grampanchayat are notified, without being influenced by the
decision taken previously. All contentions in that regard are expressly kept open.
12. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Page 12 of 12
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 1 September, 2026
Date: 05/09/2026 13:59:25
Checking your session…