GOVIND SUKHDEORAO AAGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS MINISTER RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS

                                   1                     74wp11311.26.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 74 WRIT PETITION NO. 11311 OF 2026

                  GOVIND SUKHDEORAO AAGE
                          VERSUS
      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS MINISTER RURAL
                 DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS.

                                   ...
         Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jadhwar Sidhesh V.
       AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. Vaishali S. Chaudhari
 Advocate for Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sharad S. Solanke and Mr.Atul R.
                                 Muley
                                   …

                         CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                         DATE   : 15.09.2026.


PER COURT :

1.          The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.08.2026, passed

by the Minister Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,

Maharashtra State, thereby staying the order dated 22.07.2026, passed

by the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. It is the

contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 is the Sarpanch of

Grampanchyat Kitti Aadgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. After the

election of village panchayat was held in December, 2022 for a period of

2022 to 2026 and in the said election, respondent No. 5 was directly

elected as Sarpcnah. Since he did not discharge his duties properly, a

report came to be lodged against him before Anti-Corruption Bureau. On

the basis of said report, raid was conducted by the Anti Corruption

Bureau. Respondent No. 5 was arrested and thereafter the First

Information Report came to be registered against him under Section 7A

of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
                                   2                        74wp11311.26.odt

2.          Against that petitioner has filed a complaint before the

Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, under Section 39

of the Maharashtra Village Panchyat Act seeking disqualification of

respondent No. 5.



3.          Respondent No. 2, the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar has passed an order allowing the complaint application

of the petitioner and disqualified respondent No. 5 from the post of

Sarpanch of village panchayat.      Respondent No. 5 has preferred an

appeal before respondent No. 1, the Minister of Rural Development

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, challenging the order passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.



4.          It is the grievance of the petitioner that without affording any

opportunity to him, the impugned order has been stayed by the Minister

vide order dated 19.08.2026, staying the order dated 22.07.2026, passed

by the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. It is the

grievance of the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity of

hearing before passing impugned order. It was stated that this order of

stay is temporary stay and its communication says that its hearing will

be communicated to the petitioner from the next date. However, the

communication was issued by the Desk Officer to the Divisional

Commissioner office about the stay of order passed by the Minister. In

the said communication, however, it was merely stated that, further

dates of the hearing will be communicated to the petitioner. With the
                                   3                       74wp11311.26.odt

grievance of the said order the petitioner approached this Court and his

grievance is that after the said order was passed there was no further

communication of dates of hearing to the petitioner.



5.          When the notice was issued, the learned APP was directed to

take instructions about further dates of hearing. In response, he is in

receipt of the communication dated 15.09.2026, wherein, she has been

directed to inform this Court that she should seek time for a period of 2

weeks for hearing as well as to decide the appeal.



6.          According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Section

39 (3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchyat Act mandates that the State

Government shall decide the said appeal within a period of 1 month from

the date of receipt of order from the Court. Although an appeal was filed

on 26.07.2026, the order of stay was granted on 19.08.2026 and no

further date has been communicated, even the statutory period provided

as per Section 39 (3) is over and yet no decision has been taken.



7.          In view of submission made by the learned Advocate for the

petitioner, as well as learned APP for State that the State will decide the

appeal within a period of 2 weeks from today. Therefore, Respondent No.

1 is directed to decide the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 within a

period of 2 weeks from today, as undertaken vide communication dated

15.09.2026 as contemplated under Section 39 (3) of the Maharashtra

Village Panchyat Act.
                                    4                      74wp11311.26.odt




8.             With the aforesaid directions the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.



9.             Needless to mention here that this Court has not mentioned

anything about the merits of the matter and all the contention of the

parties are kept open, before agitating respondent No. 1 in the pending

appeal.



                                    ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




Mahajansb/