Writ Petition No. 10237 of 2025 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:25281-DB 1 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 10237 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8823 OF 2025Abhijeet S/o Diliprao Deshmukh,Age : 45 years, Occ. : Agri. & Social Service,R/o : Dongargaon (Pul)Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli.. Petitioner / Applicant Versus1] The State of Maharashtra2] The State Election Commission, Through its Chief Election Commissioner, New Administrative Bhavan, Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai – 400 032.3] The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad4] The Collector, Hingoli, Tq. And Dist. Hingoli.. Respondents ...Mr. Bhargav B. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f. Milind M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate forPetitionerMr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini a/wSuraj Chakor for Maharashtra Election Commission Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole AGP for R/State…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10362 OF 2025Haribhau Nanasaheb KumatkarAge : 36 Years, Occu : Agri,R/o. At Rajewadi, Post. Nannaj,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar… Petitioner 2 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. Versus1]State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-322]State Election Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai.New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. through its Commissioner/Secretary3]Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division Nashik.4]District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.5] Deputy Collector, Revenue Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.6]Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.7]Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar Dist. Ahilyanagar through Chief Executive Officer8]Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar through its Block Development Officer9]Rushikesh Ashok Neharkar Age: 42 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Telangashi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.10] Shahadev Baliram Jaybhay Age: 43 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Telangashi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar. 3 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 11] Subhash Shamrao Jaybhay Age: 41 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Jaybhaywadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.12] Ramdas Jaysing Jaybhay Age: 58 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Jaybhaywadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.13] Maharudra Vishnu Mahanvar Age: 41 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Dhamangaon, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.14] Rajendra Bhima Kute Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Bandhkhadak, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.15] Dhanaji Khanderao Phunde Age: 55 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Bandhkhadak, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.16] Rama Navnath Gore Age: 48 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Rajewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.17] Abhiman Sahebrao Kumatkar Age: 47 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Rajewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.… RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10366 OF 20251]Baban Vishnu TupereAge : 61 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. At. Post. Khandvi, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahilyanagar. 4 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 2] Dipak Digambar Netake Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. At. Post. Dislewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.3] Prasanna Baliram Katrajkar Age: 38 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. At. Post. Kusadgaon, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.4] Dadasaheb Somnath Gade Age: 27 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. At. Post. Saradwadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.… PetitionersVersus1] State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-322] State Election Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai. New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. through its Commissioner/Secretary3] Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division Nashik.4]District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.5]Deputy Collector, Revenue Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar,6]Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.7]Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar Dist. Ahilyanagar through Chief Executive Officer 5 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 8]Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar through its Block Development Officer9] Ganesh Dadasaheb Jagtap Age: 40 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Dislewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.10] Sadhu Laxman Madke Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Khandavi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.11] Shahaji Dnyandev Maharnavar Age: 40 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Sangavi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.12] Nivrutti Kishan Maharnavar Age: 58 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Sangavi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.13] Keshav Raosaheb Katrajkar Age: 53 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Kusadgaon, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.14] Anuskh Namdev Katrajkar Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Kusadgaon, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.15]Dilip Dnyandev GambhireAge : 63 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Saradwadi, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahilyanagar.… Respondents 6 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10397 OF 2025Santosh Uttamrao PawarAge : 45 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. At. Post. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahilyanagar.… PetitionerVersus1] State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-322] State Election Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai.New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. through its Commissioner/Secretary3]Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division Nashik.4]District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.5]Deputy Collector, Revenue Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahliyanagar.6]Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.7]Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar Dist. Ahilyanagar through Chief Executive Officer8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar through its Block Development Officer
Legal Reasoning
32 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. “17.In the instant case, the Tahsildar had given an opportunity toall concerned, including the Petitioner to file his objections andsuggestions with regard to the formation of wards and reservationof seats between 7th February, 2020 to 14th February, 2020.However, admittedly the Petitioner chose not to file any objectionsor suggestions within the time prescribed. If the Petitioner wouldhave filed his objections/suggestions between 7th February, 2020and 14th February, 2020, the SDO would have enquired into thesame, given a hearing to the Petitioner and submitted his report tothe Collector. It is only after the SDO submitted his Report to theCollector and after a final notification was issued in November2020, that the Petitioner woke up from his slumber and hasattempted to impugn the delimitation/reservation/formation ofwards. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of JadhavShankar Dyandeo (supra), which follows the decision of the ApexCourt in State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the grievance raised bythe Petitioner at this late stage, i.e. when the elections are to beheld on 15th January, 2021, cannot be entertained. The Apex Courtin the case of Anugrah Narain Singh and another v. State of U.P.and others held, “Moreover, it is well settled by now that if theelection is imminent or well under way, the Court should notintervene to stop the election process. If this is allowed to be done,no election will ever take place because someone or the other willalways find some excuse to move the Court and stall theelections.” However, it is clarified that the Petitioner can alwayspursue the remedy provided under Section 15 of the MaharashtraVillage Panchayats Act, 1959. If the said remedy is pursued, it willbe open for the parties to raise all their contentions. The aboveWrit Petition is accordingly dismissed.”12.In a recent judgment and order passed on 22.08.2025 by aDivision Bench of this Court at Nagpur in the case of Shri Dilip S/oRambhau Jadhav and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others(Judgment and order dated 22.08.2025 in writ petition no. 4627 of2025), again the said well settled position of law was referred to andrelied upon while dismissing the writ petition. In this judgment andorder, the Division Bench of this Court specifically referred to an orderdated 06.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
Arguments
7 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 9]Mahesh Tushar Pawar Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri, R/o. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.10]Hanumant Bhagwan DhaleAge : 43 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahilyanagar.11]Santosh Digambar MohalkarAge : 40 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahilyanagar.12]Sunil Rajaram HajareAge : 39 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahilyanagar.… Respondents…Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for allPetitionersMr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra ElectionCommission Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar Advocate for Respondent nos. 7 & 8Mr. A. P. Avhad and Mr. Shaikh Ashraf Patel, Advocate for Respondentnos. 9,11, 13, 15 & 16 in WP/10362/2025Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe Addl GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole AGP for Respondent -State…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10408 OF 2025Jyotiba Jayramji Kharate,Age – 59 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o. Anjankhed, Tq. Mahur,District : Nanded.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 8 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 2] Divisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) Division, Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)3] District Collector, Nanded Tq. and District : Nanded4] Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, District : Nanded5] Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Mahur, Tq. Mahur, District : Nanded6] State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, New Administrative Building, Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai – 400 032. Through its Secretary.. Respondents…Mr. Prashant R. Katneshwarkar Sr. Counsel a/w Harshvardhan Karad i/b Mr.A. N. Nagargoje Adv. for PetitionerMr. Sachindra Shetye (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini, Advocate a/wSuraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election Commission Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -State…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10565 OF 2025Mangesh Govindrao Sukalkar,Age – 44 years, Occu – Agri.,R/o. Rui, Tq. Mahur,District : Nanded.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 9 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 2] Divisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) Division, Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)3] District Collector, Nanded, Tq. and District : Nanded4] Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, District : Nanded5] Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Mahur, Tq. Mahur, District : Nanded6] The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, New Administrative Building, Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai – 400 032... Respondents…Mr. Ankush Nagargoje, Advocate h/f. Mr. Dhairyashil M. Mane Advocate forPetitionerMr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Chinmay V. Kini a/wSuraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election Commission Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe Addl GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -State…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10568 OF 2025Shahaji Dnyandeo Maharnavar,Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. At. Po. Sangavi,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.. Petitioner Versus1] State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mumbai – 32. 10 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 2] State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai Through its Commissioner / Secretary3] Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik4] District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar5] Deputy Collector, Revenue, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar Through Chief Executive Officer8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar, Through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10569 OF 2025Bharat Mahadeo Hodshil,Age : 29 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. At PO. Anandwadi,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.. Petitioner Versus1] State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai through its Commissioner/Secretary 11 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 3] Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik4] District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar5] Deputy Collector, Revenue Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through Chief Executive Officer8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through its Block Development Officer .. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10570 OF 2025Ashik Dnyanadeo MoreAge : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o At. Po. Ratnapur,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.. Petitioner Versus1] State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai through its Commissioner/Secretary3] Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik4] District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar 12 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 5] Deputy Collector, Revenue Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through Chief Executive Officer8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through its Block Development Officer .. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10572 OF 2025Akshay Appa RakhAge : 22 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. At Dhanora, Post. Fakrabad,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.. Petitioner Versus1] State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai through its Commissioner/Secretary3] Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik4] District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar5] Deputy Collector, Revenue Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar 13 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through Chief Executive Officer8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through its Block Development Officer .. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2025Ganesh Namdev Sagle,Age : 33 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. At Po. Potewadi,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.. Petitioner Versus1] State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai through its Commissioner/Secretary3] Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik4] District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar5] Deputy Collector, Revenue Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through Chief Executive Officer8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents 14 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10575 OF 2025Mahadeo Vithal SatavAge : 59 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. At. Po. Fakrabad,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar.. Petitioner Versus1] State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai through its Commissioner/Secretary3] Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik4] District Collector, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar5] Deputy Collector, Revenue Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar6] Tahsildar, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar7] Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through Chief Executive Officer8] Panchayat Samiti, Jamkhed Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahilyanagar, through its Block Development Officer .. Respondents…Mr. Shaikh Ashpak Patel, Advocate h/f. Abhijit P. Avhad, Advocate forPetitioner in all petitions. Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Chinmay V. Kini,Advocate a/w Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election Commission Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 7 & 8 15 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe Addl GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -State…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10571 OF 2025 WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9815 OF 2025 IN WP/10571/2025(Chandrasen Ishwarrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9748 OF 2025 IN WP/10571/2025(Vijaykumar Balajirao Dhondge Vs. Ganesh Shivajirao Savle Patil & Ors.)Ganesh Shivajirao Savle Patil,Age 56 years, Occu. : Agriculture,R/o. Dhanaj (Kd), Tq. LohaDistrict : Nanded.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary For Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai2] The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai Through its Secretary3] The Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar4] The Collector, Nanded, District Nanded5] The Deputy Collector, Nanded District Nanded6] The Tahsildar, Loha, Tq. Loha, District – Nanded7] The Tahsildar, Kandhar Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded8] The Zilla Parishad, Nanded District Nanded Through its Chief Executive Officer.. Respondents… 16 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. Mr. V. D. Hon, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Shubham S. Kote, Advocate i/b Mr. A. V.Hon, Advocate for petitionerMr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra ElectionCommission Mr. Anilkumar B. Dhongade, Advocate for Applicant in CA/9748/2025Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate h/f Mr. Abhishek D. Chapule, Advocatefor applicant in CA/9815/2025Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent no. 7 Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole AGP for R/State…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10806 OF 2025Santosh Shankarappa MatwaleAge : 34 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Yergi, Tq. Degloor,Dist. Nanded. …PetitionerVersus1]The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Secretary,Rural Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2]The State Election Commission,Through its State Election CommissionerHaving office at First Floor, New AdministrativeBuilding, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400032.3]The Divisional Commissioner, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,Chatrapati Sambhajinagar,Tq. & Dist. Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.4]The District Election Officer / Collector, NandedCollector Office, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 17 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 5]The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor,Deputy Collector Office, Degloor,Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.6]The Tahsildar, Degloor,Tahsil Office, Degloor,Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.7]Vitthal Madhavrao ShindeAge : Major, Occ : Agri.,R/o. Karadkhed, Tq. Degloor,Dist. Nanded …RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10818 OF 2025Santosh Shankarappa MatwaleAge : 34 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Yergi, Tq. Degloor,Dist. Nanded. …PetitionerVersus1]The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Secretary,Rural Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2]The State Election Commission,Through its State Election CommissionerHaving office at First Floor, New AdministrativeBuilding, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400032.3]The Divisional Commissioner, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,Chatrapati Sambhajinagar,Tq. & Dist. Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.4]The District Election Officer / Collector, NandedCollector Office, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 18 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 5]The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor,Deputy Collector Office, Degloor,Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.6]The Tahsildar, Degloor,Tahsil Office, Degloor,Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.7]Rajeshwar Tejerao Mundkar,Age : Major, Occ : Agri.,R/o. Takli, Tq. Degloor,Dist. Nanded …Respondents…Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners in both WPsMr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra ElectionCommissionMr. M. V. Salunke, Advocate h/f. Mr. Chandrakant Bodkhe, Advocate forRespondent No. 7 Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -State...WRIT PETITION NO. 10814 OF 2025Dnyaneshwar s/o Annasaheb Chowre,Age : 58 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Bhatumba, Tq. Kaij,Dist. Beed. …PetitionerVersus1]The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Chief Secretary,Maharashtra State, Mumbai.2]The Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.3]The Collector,Beed, Dist. Beed. 19 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 4]The Maharashtra Election Commissioner,Mumbai …RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10893 OF 2025Sambhaji s/o Mohanrao Lomte,Age : 34 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Hol, Tq. Kaij,Dist. Beed. …PetitionerVersus1]The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Chief Secretary,Maharashtra State, Mumbai.2]The Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.3]The Collector,Beed, Dist. Beed.4]The Maharashtra Election Commissioner,Mumbai …Respondents…Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra ElectionCommission Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl, GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl, GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State…WRIT PETITION NO. 10821 OF 2025Gayabai W/o Sheshrao AndhaleAge : about Major 46 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Limbodi Village, Taluka Ashti,District : Beed, Maharashtra. …PetitionerVersus 20 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 1]The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Principal Secretary,Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2]The Collector and District Election Officer,Beed District, Beed, Maharashtra.3]The Divisional Commissioner,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (formerly Aurangabad).4]The Cheief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Beed, Maharashtra.5]The State Election Commission,Maharashtra StateNew Administrative Building,Madam Cama Road, Hutatma RajguruChowk, Mumbai – 400032 …RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10824 OF 2025Tulsabai W/o Ajinath Garje,Age : about 45 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Khilad Village, Taluka Ashti,District : Beed, Maharashtra. …PetitionerVersus1]The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Principal Secretary,Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2]The Collector and District Election Officer,Beed District, Beed, Maharashtra.3]The Divisional Commissioner,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (formerly Aurangabad).4]The Cheief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Beed, Maharashtra. 21 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 5]The State Election Commission,Maharashtra StateNew Administrative Building,Madam Cama Road, Hutatma RajguruChowk, Mumbai – 400032 …Respondents…Mr. N. B. Garje, Advocate for petitioners in both WPs Mr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra ElectionCommission Mr. Suhas R. Shirsath, Advocate for Resp. No. 4 (ZP Beed)Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -State...WRIT PETITION NO. 10832 OF 2025Shamrao Kondiba Salunke,Age : 51 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Dhanora, Post Takli Kolte,Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar …PetitionerVersus1]The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Principal Secretary,Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2]The State Election Commission Maharashtra State,Mumbai. New Administrative Building,Madam Cama Road, Mumbai.Through its Commissioner/Secretary.3]Divisional Commissioner,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.4]District Collector,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.5]Deputy Collector, Revenue Aurangabad,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 22 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 6]Tahsildar, Phulambri,Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.7]Zilla Parishad,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Dist. Chhatrapati SambhajinagarThrough Chief Executive Officer.8]Panchayat Samiti, Phulambri,Tq. Phulambri, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Block Development Officer.9]Kachru Laxman Wadekar,Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. Padali, Tq. Phulambri,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.…Respondents…Mr. Ravindra V. Gore, Advocate for PetitionerMr. Sachindra Shetye, Advocate (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini,Advocate a/w Mr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra ElectionCommission Mr. A. B. Girase, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. KaleAddl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent -State...WRIT PETITION NO. 10892 OF 20251]Sudhir s/o Sanjivan MundeAge : 22 years, Occu. : AgriR/o Ladewadgaon, Taluka : KaijDistrict : Beed2]Rahul s/o Gina ShindeAge : 42 years, Occu. : AgriR/o Ladewadgaon, Taluka : KaijDistrict : Beed3]Balaji s/o Shankar SonawaneAge : 32 years, Occu. : AgriR/o Ladewadgaon, Taluka : KaijDistrict : Beed...Petitioners (Ori. Objectionist) 23 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. Versus1]State of MaharashtraThrough the Principal SecretaryRural Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2]The Divisional Commissioner,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar3]The District Collector, Beed.4] The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambejogai, District Beed5] The Tehsildar, Kaij, Taluka Kaij, District: Beed6]Maharashtra State Election CommissionFirst Floor, New Administrative Building,Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400032Email: [email protected] ...Respondents (Ori. Respondents)WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10894 OF 2025Ashwini w/o Dnyaneshwar ChavareAge : 48 years, Occu. : SarpanchR/o. Bhatumba, Taluka : KaijDistrict : Beed...Petitioner(Ori. Objectionist)Versus1]State of MaharashtraThrough the Principal SecretaryRural Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2]The Divisional Commissioner,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar 24 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 3]The District Collector, Beed.4] The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambejogai, District Beed5] The Tehsildar, Kaij, Taluka Kaij, District: Beed6]Maharashtra State Election CommissionFirst Floor, New Administrative Building,Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400032Email: [email protected]]Arun s/o Nanasaheb DhapateAge : Major, Occu.: NILR/o Bhatumba, Taluka : Kaij,District : Beed… Respondents (Ori. Respondents)WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10895 OF 2025Yadav s/o Ramchandra ThombreAge : 58 years, Occu. : AgriR/o. Undri, Taluka : KaijDistrict : Beed...Petitioner(Ori. Objectionist)Versus1]State of MaharashtraThrough the Principal SecretaryRural Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2]The Divisional Commissioner,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar3]The District Collector, Beed.4] The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambejogai, District Beed 25 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 5] The Tehsildar, Kaij, Taluka Kaij, District: Beed6]Maharashtra State Election CommissionFirst Floor, New Administrative Building,Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400032 … Respondents (Ori. Respondents)…Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Vikas D. Matkar & Kunal A.Kale i/by Mr. Amol R. Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Sachindra Shetye (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Chinmay V. Kini, Advocate a/wMr. Suraj Chakor, Advocate for Maharashtra Election Commission Mr. A. B. Girase Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, Mr. A. R. Kale Addl. GP, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP, Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent- State... CORAM : MANISH PITALE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON: 10 SEPTEMBER 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 19 SEPTEMBER 2025JUDGMENT (PER – MANISH PITALE, J.) :Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent oflearned counsel for the parties, the petitions are heard finally, at thestage of admission. 2.This bunch of writ petitions challenges final notification ofward formation in various districts of the State of Maharashtra, in thelight of the impending local body elections to be conducted in the State.Some of the petitions were filed at a point of time when the finalnotification was yet to be issued and, therefore, upon the final 26 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. notification being issued, such petitions were amended and variousgrounds of challenge have been raised in these petitions. 3.The specific grounds raised in these petitions will be dealtwith in this judgment and order, but, before proceeding to do so, it isimperative to first refer to the question of jurisdiction available with thisCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere withsuch final notification, which necessarily calls upon this Court toconsider whether inclusion or exclusion of certain villages is justifiedwhile laying down the boundaries of such wards / electoral divisions /electoral colleges. 4.The Supreme Court and this Court in a number ofjudgments, has referred to the relevant provisions of the Constitution ofIndia, concerning various steps to be taken by the concernedauthorities for conducting elections, which necessarily includesdelimitation of constituencies / electoral divisions / electoral colleges.Various Articles of the Constitution, including Article 243-O, lay downthe limitations on the power of interference by Courts in electoralmatters, which includes questioning the validity of any law relating todelimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats made under Article243-K of the Constitution. In fact, such a power is found in respect ofvarious local bodies under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India 27 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. and even Article 329(a) thereof. These Articles have come up forconsideration of the Supreme Court and this Court, on variousoccasions and, therefore, it would be necessary to refer to the law laiddown therein, before considering the challenges raised in thesepetitions.5.In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Pradhan Sangh KshetraSamiti (1995) Supp (2) SCC 305, the Supreme Court held as follows:-“44.It is for the Government to decide in what manner thepanchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat areawill be delimited. It is not for the court to dictate the manner inwhich the same would be done. So long as the panchayat areasand the constituencies are delimited in conformity with theconstitutional provisions or without committing a breach thereof,the courts cannot interfere with the same. We may, in thisconnection, refer to a decision of this Court in The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. and Others v. The State of Orissa andOthers [(1961) 2 SCR 537]. In this case, the petitioner-mineowners, had among others, challenged the methodprescribed by the legislature for recovering the cess under theOrissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 on theground that it was un-constitutional. The majority of the Benchheld that the method is a matter of convenience and, thoughrelevant, has to be tested in the light of other relevantcircumstances. It is not permissible to challenge the vires of astatute solely on the ground that the method adopted for therecovery of the impost can and generally is adopted in levying aduty of excise.45.What is more objectionable in the approach of the HighCourt is that although clause (a) of Article 243-0 of theConstitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts inelectoral matters including the questioning of the validity of anylaw relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or theallotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported tobe made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat,the High Court has gone into the question of the validity of thedelimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seatsto them. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of thisCourt in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors. 28 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. [(1967) 1 SCR 400]. In that case, a notification of theDelimitation Commission whereby a city which had been ageneral constituency was notified as reserved for the ScheduledCastes. This was challenged on the ground that the petitionerhad a right to be a candidate for Parliament from the saidconstituency which had been taken away. This Court held thatthe impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitationof the constituencies or the allotment of seats to suchconstituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution, andthat an examination of sections 8 and 9 of the DelimitationCommission Act showed that the matters therein dealt with werenot subject to the scrutiny of any court of law. There was a verygood reason for such a provision because if the orders madeunder sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the resultwould be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up anelection indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of theconstituencies from court to court. Although an order underSection 8 or 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act and publishedunder Section 10 (1) of that Act is not part of an Act ofParliament, its effect is the same. Section 10 (4) of that Act putssuch an order in the same position as a law made by theParliament itself which could only be made by it under Article327. If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-0 in place ofArticle 327 and sections 2 (kk), 11-F and 12-BB of the Act inplace of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will beobvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area norof the constituencies in the said areas and the allotments ofseats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor theCourt could have entertained such challenge except on theground that before the delimitation, no objections were invitedand no hearing was given. Even this challenge could not havebeen entertained after the notification for holding the electionswas issued. The High Court not only entertained the challengebut has also gone into the merits of the alleged grievancesalthough the challenge was made after the notification for theelection was issued on 31st August, 1994.” 6.In said case, the High Court had interfered with suchdelimitation of constituencies, but, the Supreme Court set aside theorder of the High Court in the light of the narrow window available forinterference, in such matters. 29 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 7.In the case of Anugrah Narain Singh and another Vs.State of U.P.; 1996 (6) SCC 303, a similar question considering scopeof jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia in such matters, came up for consideration. After referring to theaforesaid bar from interference, the Supreme Court held that ifinterference is allowed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,several elections will be indefinitely delayed and it will not be possibleto comply with the mandate of the Constitution, which requires freshelections to be held immediately upon the life of an elected bodyexpiring or it being dissolved. 8.In the case of Jadhav Shankar Dnyandeo Vs. Collector,Satara; 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 109, a Division Bench of this Court, followingthe dictum laid down in the case of State of U.P. V. Pradhan SanghKshetra Samiti (supra), held as follows :-“The plain reading of the above referred observations made bythe Apex Court would show that if provisions of Article 243-C,243-K and 243-O are read together the delimitation ofPanchayat area or the formation of the constituencies in thesaid areas and allotments of seats to the constituencies couldbe challenged nor the court can entertain such challengeexcept on the ground that before delimitation, no objectionswere invited and no hearing was given, even though thischallenge also could not be entertained after the notification forholding the election is issued. The law declared by the ApexCourt is loud and clear and prohibits courts to entertainchallenge in view of Article 243-C, 243-K read with 243-O inrespect of the above aspects, and therefore the challengeraised by the petitioners pertaining to delimitation of Panchayatarea or that of formation of constituency in the said area as wellas allotment of seat to such constituencies cannot beentertained by this court since the objections were invited, 30 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. petitioners have raised objections, hearing was given to themand it is only thereafter the objections were rejected by theCollector Satara by passing impugned order. The contentionscanvassed by the petitioners based on Rule 2 (5) of BVP Rules,1966 as well as Section 4 of MLR Code as well as Section 4(2)of the BVP Act in view of Article 243-C, Article 243-K and 243-Ocoupled with the law declared by the Apex Court in State ofUttar Pradesh (cited supra) is devoid of substance.” 9.Thus, it was held that since the concerned authority hadinvited objections, given hearing on such objections and then finalizedthe notification, there was no scope for interference under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. In the case of Punjabrao Shrihari WadjePatil Vs. State of Maharashtra (Judgment and order dated16.01.2017 in writ petition no. 154 of 2017 and connected Petitions), aDivision Bench of this Court followed the aforesaid position of law andupon considering the facts of the said case, held as follows :- “10. We have perused the reasoned orders passed by theDivisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner has passedwell reasoned orders and has given reasons why in some cases hehas not accepted proposals given by the Collector and alsoconsidered the objections of the objectors. It cannot be said thatthe exercise done by the Divisional Commissioner is arbitrary.11. Taking into consideration all these aspects and in view of thespecific bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, we areof the view that no case is made out for interference with the orderspassed by the Divisional Commissioner.”10.In the case of Anant Baburao Golait (Gahilot) Vs. StateElection Commission of India and others (Judgment and orderdated 07.07.2022 in writ petition no. 6765 of 2022 and connectedpetitions), after referring to the said position of law, laid down by the 31 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. Supreme Court and followed by this Court, a Division Bench of thisCourt held as follows :-“27.It is well known that a Court exercising plenary jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution ought to issue a writ whichwould further public interest and not thwart it. What emerges,giving due regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court inState of Goa (supra), Anugrah Narain Singh (supra) andLakshmi Charan Sen (supra) is that an otherwise imminentelection process, therefore, need not be derailed merelybecause there are certain disgruntled voices who wish to havethe wards formed in the manner they like, while dislining theformation brought about by the State Election Commission. Ifthere be any genuine legal grievance which calls for beingaddressed, the forum prescribed by law has to be approached.28. Having held so, we repeat that the prayers of the writpetitions under consideration do not reveal that a single writpetition is intended to obtain relief for facilitating smoothprogress of the elections; on the contrary, the interim prayers inall such writ petitions are such that grant thereof would have theeffect of postponing the elections for an indefinite period. This,coupled with the judgment in Suresh Mahajan (supra) read withthe order in Rahul Ramesh Wagh (supra), makes it clear ascrystal that the elections to the local bodies cannot be stalled byany order passed by this Court; even if a stalling were directed,such order would be of no effect.”11.Considering the fact that in some of the petitions, beforethis Court, the petitioners had not even raised any objection within thestipulated period of time and, thereafter, they are seeking to challengethe final notification, the observations made by a Division Bench of thisCourt in the case of Anil Ramchandra Chondhe V/s. State ofMaharashtra and others; 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2249 (Judgmentdated 13.01.2021 in writ petition (St.) no. 97619 of 2020), assumesignificance. Relevant portion reads as follows :-
Decision
33 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. No. 19756 of 2021, directing local body elections to be held in State ofMaharashtra within 4 months from the date of the order. The relevantobservations made in the said judgment and order, read as follows :- “xvi] An objection in the ward formation process, particularlyas regards to the inclusion or exclusion a certain part out of areaand attachment or detachment from certain part, is a purelydisputed question of facts. While dealing with writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India in a challenge to the wardformation on the ground of such attachment or detachment, weare cautious that we are not sitting in an Appeal over thedecision taken by the authorities designated for the electionpurpose. Such disputed question of facts could very well beaddressed in an appropriate proceeding i.e. Election Petition.….….xix] We are extremely cautious of the fact that the presentelection processes are being conducted under the orders of theHon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)No.19756/2021 with connected matters. We are cautious thatany order or direction varying or postponing any election stagesof ongoing election would not only disturb the election process,but would result into delaying the schedule of election processmandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For this reason also,none of the prayers in the writ petition can be entertained at thisjuncture and in the present writ petition.”13.It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law,that this Court has taken up the instant petitions for consideration. It isto be reiterated that since local body elections in the State ofMaharashtra have not been taken place for considerable period oftime, the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 19756of 2021 (Rahul Ramesh Wagh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 34 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. others), in its order dated 06.05.2025, issued specific directions, whichare as follows :- “5. Consequently, subject to the outcome of these proceedings andwithout prejudice to the issues raised on behalf of the rival parties,we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions to the Stateof Maharashtra/State Election Commission:(i) The elections to the local bodies shall be notified by the StateElection Commission within four weeks;(ii) The reservation shall be provided to the OBC communities as perthe law as it existed in the State of Maharashtra prior to the 2022Report of the Banthia Commission;(iii) An endeavour shall be made to conclude the elections within aperiod of four months. However, the State Election Commission shallbe at liberty to seek extension of time in appropriate cases; and(iv) The Elections shall be held subject to the outcome of theseproceedings.”14.Thus, it is evident that the Supreme Court has emphasizedupon the need to hold elections in a democracy, so that local selfgovernment, contemplated under the scheme of the Constitution, isachieved at the earliest. 15.In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact thatby exercising power under the provisions of the Maharashtra ZillaParishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Act of 1961), therespondent - State issued order dated 12.06.2025, laying down theprocedure for delimitation of constituencies / electoral divisions /electoral colleges for the forthcoming elections to the Zilla Parishads 35 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. and Panchayat Samitis. This order lays down the procedure, which ledto issuance of final notification. The timeline for taking various steps asper the said order dated 12.06.2025, was as follows :- Sr.No.Details StatutoryTimeline1.Draft Electoral Divisions/Colleges published by District Collectors14.07.20252.Last date for filing objections/suggestions21.07.20253.Reports / Opinions by Collectors to be submitted to Divisional Commissioners.28.07.20254.Hearings to be completed by Divisional Commissioners and ordersare to be passed.11.08.20255.Publication of Final Electoral Divisions/Colleges is to be published in Gazatte by District Collector.18.08.202516.It is undisputed that the last date for publication of finalnotification of electoral division / electoral colleges, was extended to22.08.2025. There is also no dispute about the fact that the personswho had raised objections to the draft notification, were given hearing,and, thereafter, the final notification was published in the official gazetteby the respondent - District Collector. 17.A perusal of the Government Order dated 12.06.2025shows that the last Census i.e. Census of 2011, has been taken as thebasis for taking decisions on the matter of deciding boundaries anddelimitation of final electoral divisions / electoral colleges. It isspecified that the boundaries and ward formations of electoral divisions/ electoral colleges undertaken in the year 2017, would be a relevantconsideration and further that the concerned authorities while taking 36 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. such decision, would start from the North of the District, moving to theNorth-East, then to the East and, thereafter, to the West and finally tothe South in a zig-zag manner for determining the boundaries. It wasalso specified that the geographical contiguity as well as the naturalboundaries such as rivers, nallahs, mountains, flyovers etc. would be arelevant consideration. It was also specified in the Government orderthat Gram Panchayats ought not to be divided as far as possible.Other relevant considerations were also provided, including theconvenience of the voters. The Government order further provided themanner in which the draft notification would be publicized and,thereupon, objections would be invited, heard and final notificationwould be issued. 18.Having perused the Government order dated 12.06.2025,we are of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to makeout a case to hold that the respondents have exercised the power in anarbitrary or malicious manner. In fact, the Government order dated12.06.2025 and the timelines, as also the procedure prescribed therein,are found to be in consonance with the Constitutional scheme. 19.In fact, the petitioners have not seriously challenged theGovernment order dated 12.06.2025, but most of the grounds raised inthese petitions allege violation of the procedure prescribed in the said 37 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. Government order itself, indicating arbitrariness on the part of therespondents while issuing the final notification. 20.In the light of the above mentioned position of law, withregard to the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, we find that there is a very narrow scope for interference andthat the petitioners have an extremely uphill task to satisfy this Courtthat in an individual case, interference is warranted. This Court,exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,would be loath to lightly interfere with the final notification, in the light ofthe Constitutional bar to interference in such matters. 21.As noted herein-above, since local body elections inMaharashtra have not been conducted for a considerable period oftime, the Supreme Court, in the above mentioned order dated06.05.2025, passed in the case of Rahul Ramesh Wagh Vs. TheState of Maharashtra and others (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19756 of 2021), has emphasized upon the need to conduct suchelections at the earliest. In fact, the said order indicates that suchelections be conducted within 4 months of the date of the order.Therefore, unless the petitioners are able to make out a compellingcase for interference; this Court would not be inclined to show any 38 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. indulgence, as it would amount to derailing the process of elections tolocal bodies in the State of Maharashtra.22.It is in this backdrop, that we are taking up individual casesfor consideration. [ I ]WRIT PETITION NO. 10237 OF 2025 WITH CA/8823/202523.Mr. Bhargav B. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had raisedvarious objections to the manner in which the draft notificationdetermined the electoral divisions / electoral colleges for Taluka -Kalamnuri, District - Hingoli. 24.It was submitted that in the present case, the petitionerhad submitted his objection even before the draft notification wasprepared. After the final notification was issued, the petition wasamended to raise further grounds of challenge. It was submitted thatwhile some of the objections were partly accepted, the others wererejected in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. In this regard,reference was made to the map of the said Taluka and it was sought tobe demonstrated that the respondents had not even followed thestipulations in the Government order dated 12.06.2025, demonstratingarbitrariness. 39 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 25.On the other hand, Mr. A.B. Girase, learned GovernmentPleader invited attention of this Court to the manner in which theobjections raised by the petitioner were dealt with by the respondent -Divisional Commissioner, on the basis of inputs given by the DeputyCollector / Tahsildar as well as the Collector of the District. It wassubmitted that proper hearing was given and for the reasons recordedin writing, the objections were dealt with and the final notification wasissued. It was submitted that there was no question of anyarbitrariness or malice and, therefore, the petition deserved to bedismissed. 26.Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned counsel appearing for therespondent - State Election Commission emphasized upon theextremely narrow scope available in such matters and supported thecontentions on facts raised by the learned Government Pleader. 27.We have considered the rival submissions. We have alsoperused the map of Taluka - Kalamnuri, District - Hingoli. Thedocument at Exhibit - G shows the manner in which the objectionsraised by the petitioner were dealt with in detail by the respondent -Divisional Commissioner. Proper hearing was granted and inputsgiven by the Deputy Collector / Tahsildar as well as the respondent -Collector were taken into consideration. We find that the petitioner in 40 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. this petition appears to have raised objections with regard to theentirety of the Taluka, claiming that the stipulations in the Governmentorder dated 12.06.2025 were also not followed. But, the manner inwhich the objections have been dealt with by the respondent -authorities, shows that there is indeed application of mind, upon properhearing being granted to the petitioner and specific reasons have beenrecorded for the manner in which boundaries of the electoral divisionsand electoral colleges were determined in the final notification. 28. We find that the zig-zag pattern contemplated inGovernment order dated 12.06.2025 was broadly followed by theauthorities and the other considerations with regard to naturalboundaries and balancing population while maintaining 10% marginwere applied while determining the boundaries. In writ jurisdiction, thisCourt cannot tinker with inclusion or exclusion of a village whilefinalizing electoral divisions and electoral colleges. It is also to benoted that since number of electoral divisions and electoral colleges incertain instances were increased, there was bound to be change ascompared to such electoral divisions and electoral colleges determinedon earlier occasions. No case is made out for interference in thispetition and accordingly, it is dismissed. 41 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. [ II ] WRIT PETITION NO. 10362 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10366 OF 2025AND WRIT PETITION NO. 10397 OF 202529.In these petitions, the petitioners had not raised anyobjection to the draft notification issued by the respondent - authorities.It is their case, that since they were satisfied with the draft notification,there was no occasion for them to raise objection. The grievance ofthe petitioners is that objections raised by some of the privaterespondents were illegally and illogically accepted, prompting thepetitioners to file the instant petitions. We are of the opinion that ifpetitions filed by such petitioners are entertained, it would be anendless exercise as, either the petitioners or the respondents or eventhird parties would have series of grievances and objections withregard to finalization of the boundaries of electoral divisions / electoralcolleges. If such petitions are routinely entertained, it would lead toderailing the electoral process, which cannot be countenanced in thelight of the position clarified by the Supreme Court and this Court in theafore-mentioned judgments. Therefore, the scope for entertaining andconsidering such petitions is even narrower. 42 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 30.Nonetheless, we heard the learned counsel for thepetitioners in these petitions. The principal contention raised in thesepetitions, was that objections raised by the private respondents werewrongly accepted, as a consequence of which the boundaries ofelectoral divisions / electoral colleges in Taluka Jamkhed, District -Ahilyanagar were arbitrarily changed, to the detriment of the petitionersand other voters. It was submitted that such boundaries weredeliberately changed to benefit certain political parties, demonstratingmalice and arbitrariness. It was submitted that the petitioners andother voters of specified villages would suffer inconvenience if the finalnotification as regards said Taluka - Jamkhed, District - Ahilyanagar, isnot interfered with. 31.On the other hand Mr. A.B. Girase, learned GovernmentPleader referred to the Annexure - E in writ petition no. 10362 of 2025,as also other such documents filed in the accompanying petitions,giving the details of the manner in which the objections were partlyaccepted by taking into consideration the directions contained inGovernment order dated 12.06.2025.32.Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned counsel appearing for theState Election Commission emphasized upon the narrow scope ofinterference and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 43 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 33.We have considered the rival submissions. 34.The documents on record show that the objections raisedby the private respondents were taken into consideration, properhearing was granted and for reasons recorded in writing, some of theobjections were accepted, leading to determination of the boundariesof the electoral divisions / electoral colleges, in a particular manner inthe final notification. 35.The reasons recorded in said documents show that naturalboundaries, convenience of voters, the factor regarding increase ofelectoral divisions / electoral colleges and the need to ensure thepopulation balance, were taken into consideration while finalizing theboundaries of the electoral divisions / electoral colleges. We areunable to reach a finding that the final notification as regards Taluka -Jamkhed, District - Ahilyanagar arbitrarily determined such boundariesor that the said exercise was undertaken maliciously, in order to benefitcertain parties. 36.In any case, as noted herein-above, the petitioners hadnever raised any objection and the objections raised by the privaterespondents have been logically taken into consideration in the light ofthe procedure specified in Government order dated 12.06.2025. 44 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. Therefore, in the light of the limited scope available for this Court insuch matters, we are not inclined to interfere with the final notificationas regards the said Taluka.37.In the light of above, the aforesaid petitions are dismissed. [ III ]WRIT PETITION NO. 10408 OF 202538.The petitioner in this petition has challenged the finalnotification in respect of Taluka - Mahur, District - Nanded, claiming thatvillage Anjankhed has been arbitrarily deleted from electoral divisionWai Bazar and it has been wrongly included in the electoral division -Wanola. 39.Mr. Prashant Katneshwarkar, learned senior counselappearing for said petitioner, referred to the map of the said taluka andsought to impress upon this Court that the said change of boundariesmade in the final notification was with the ulterior motive of benefittingcertain political parties. It was emphasized that the map would showthat village Rui was correctly included earlier in the Wanola electoraldivision and Anjankhed village was properly included in Wai Bazarelectoral division, but the situation was maliciously and arbitrarilyreversed. The distance between the said villages and the electoral 45 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. division in which they were included, was emphasized upon to showthat great inconvenience would be caused to the voters like thepetitioners in the said Taluka. 40.On the other hand, Mr. Girase, learned GovernmentPleader invited attention of this Court to the reply affidavit andparticularly, the contents of document recording the reasons whycertain objections raised in respect of the said Taluka were consideredand determined. It was submitted that a perusal of the reasonsrecorded in the said document demonstrated that the Governmentorder dated 12.06.2025 was scrupulously followed and that there wasno scope for interference. 41. Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned counsel appearing for theState Election Commission emphasized upon the narrow scope ofinterference and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 42.We have perused the documents on record, including themap of Taluka - Mahur, District - Nanded, as also the documentrecording reasons why the respondent - authorities took a specificdecision with regard to the aforesaid two villages in respect of theirinclusion and exclusion in the two electoral divisions. Having perusedthe same, we find that proper hearing was granted to the objectors,objections were taken into consideration and upon referring to the 46 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. requirements of Government order dated 12.06.2025, specificdecisions were taken in the final notification while determining theboundaries of the two electoral divisions as also the electoral colleges. 43.We find that the aspect of balancing population in theelectoral divisions was specifically taken into consideration by therespondent - authorities. In the light of the law referred to herein-above, this Court in writ jurisdiction, would not interfere on the questionof inclusion / exclusion of villages in electoral divisions, so long as thereasons are recorded. The petitioners are unable to demonstrate anymalice or arbitrariness in the said exercise. It is obvious that this Courtin writ jurisdiction, will look into the procedure followed but, this Courtwould not sit in appeal on merits over the decision taken by therespondent - authorities, particularly in the light of the constitutional barnoted herein-above. 44.Hence, the aforesaid writ petition is found to be withoutany merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. [ IV ] WRIT PETITION NO. 10565 OF 202545.This petition also concerns Taluka - Mahur, District -Nanded. In this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his 47 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. objection of deleting village Rui from certain electoral colleges andincluding it in electoral colleges of Wai Bazar. Objection is raised toinclusion of village Anjankhed in Wanola electoral division. It is allegedthat the entire exercise is malicious, for the reason that it benefits aparticular political formation, to the detriment of others, apart fromcausing inconvenience to the voters like the petitioners. 46. As noted herein-above, while deciding writ petition no.10408 of 2025 concerning this very Taluka of District - Nanded, therespondent - authorities considered the objection in detail, gave properhearing and, thereupon, reached a conclusion whereby the boundariesof the two electoral divisions and the electoral colleges forming partthereof, were determined by exercising power as per the Governmentorder dated 12.06.2025. The document on record shows that detailedreasons were recorded, including the requirement of maintainingbalance of population, in the electoral divisions / electoral colleges.47.Although, the learned counsel for the petitionerMr. Nagargoje vehemently submitted that the entire exercise wasundertaken arbitrarily, we are in agreement with the contentions raisedon behalf of the respondent - authorities by Mr. Girase, learnedGovernment Pleader and we decline to interfere in the final notificationas regards Taluka - Mahur, District - Nanded. 48 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 48.The writ petition is dismissed.[ V ]WRIT PETITION NO. 10568 OF 2025,WRIT PETITION NO. 10569 OF 2025,WRIT PETITION NO. 10570 OF 2025WRIT PETITION NO. 10572 OF 2025WRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2025 ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 10575 OF 202549.All these petitions concern objections raised with regard to determination of boundaries in the final notification of electoral divisions/ electoral colleges concerning Taluka - Jamkhed, District - Ahilyanagar.50.Mr. Shaikh Ashpak Patel, learned counsel for thepetitioners in these petitions submitted that the objections raised by thepetitioners with regard to inclusion of certain villages in electoraldivisions of Sakat, Kharda and Jawala were wrongly decided when thefinal notification was issued.51.Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the map andtried to impress upon this Court that even a visual impression, wouldindicate the arbitrariness of the exercise undertaken by the respondentand grave inconvenience would be caused to the voters like thepetitioner, if the final determination of such boundaries was to be 49 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. upheld by this Court. It was submitted that the objections were notproperly heard and determined by the respondent - authorities. 52. On the other hand, Mr. Girase, learned GovernmentPleader relied upon the reply affidavits filed in these petitions and heplaced particular reliance on the documents showing the recording ofreasons while dealing with the objections raised in these matters. 53.We have perused the documents recording reasons whiledetermining the objections raised in these matters. 54.We find that the reasons recorded while dealing with theobjections, specifically relied upon Government order dated12.06.2025. The factors regarding zig-zag pattern to be followed, asfar as possible, populations being balanced with margin of 10%, naturalboundaries being taken into consideration were applied. Thereupon,the notification was finalized with regard to the aforesaid Taluka -Jamkhed in District - Ahilyanagar. Considering the narrow scope ofinterference in writ jurisdiction in such matters, we are of the opinionthat the petitioners have failed to make out a case in their favour. 55.It cannot be said that the petitioners have been able todemonstrate malice on the part of the respondent - authorities or thatproper hearing was not granted while reaching findings, thereby 50 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. demonstrating that the petitioners have not been able to convince thisCourt to hold in their favour despite the Constitutional bar noted herein-above. 56.Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned counsel appearing for theState Election Commission emphasized upon the narrow scope ofinterference and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 57.Hence, we are unable to agree with the petitioners and allthese petitions are also dismissed. [ VI ] WRIT PETITION NO. 10571 OF 2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9748 OF 2025AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9815 OF 2025 58This petition raises grievance in respect of boundaries ofelectoral divisions / electoral colleges in Loha and Kandhar Taluka ofDistrict - Nanded. The petitioner is aggrieved by objections raised bycertain persons being accepted and changes being made in theboundaries while issuing the final notification. The petitioner claimsthat the draft notification was based on the boundaries that weredetermined when earlier elections were conducted and there was noreason to change the boundaries. According to the petitioner, 51 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. objections were wrongly dealt with and hence, the final notification inrespect of the aforesaid 2 Talukas of District - Nanded needinterference. 59.Applicants in the Civil Application seek intervention as theywere the persons who had raised the objections, leading to theboundaries being determined and changed in the final notification. 60.The grounds raised in the present petition show thataccording to the petitioner, certain villages ought not have beenincluded and other villages ought to have been excluded from Lohaand Kandhar Talukas of District - Nanded. It is alleged that such anexercise is not just arbitrary, but, it is undertaken with the intention ofpolitically benefiting certain parties. Since the petitioner intends tocontest election, this is operating to his detriment. 61.The applicants in the intervention application submit thatthe petitioner has deliberately not made them parties, in order to snatchorders from this Court behind their back. 62.Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner referred to the map of the two Talukas and he submitted thatthe objections were wrongly accepted and even the procedurecontemplated in the Government order dated 12.06.2025 was not 52 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. scrupulously followed by the authorities. Allegations of malice,arbitrariness were vehemently raised on behalf of the petitioners and itwas submitted that even if the narrow scope of interference indicated inthe judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court was to be applied,this was a fit case for interference with the final notification concerningthe aforesaid two Talukas of District – Nanded.63.Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleader vehementlyopposed the said contentions. He referred to and relied upon thedocuments recording reasons for disposing of the objectionsconcerning the said two Talukas and he submitted that no interferenceis warranted in the present case.64.We have considered the rival submissions. Upon perusingthe maps of the two talukas, we find that the objections raised to thedraft notification, were dealt with by the respondent – authorities aftergiving a proper hearing to the objectors. The authorities found thatupon applying Government order dated 12.06.2025 while consideringthe said objections, the boundaries needed to be changed in aparticular manner, so as to maintain the balance of population withinthe 10% limit and also to properly ensure that geographical contiguitywas applied, while determining electoral divisions / electoral collegesfor the convenience of the population. 53 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 65.Having perused the documents on record, we find that theprocedure followed by the respondent – authorities cannot be said tobe arbitrary. Inclusion / exclusion of villages was undertaken on thebasis of the factors indicated in the Government order dated12.06.2025and, hence, we find that the petitioners have failed to make out a caseto overcome the Constitutional bar, for this Court to exercise writjurisdiction in the matter.66.The writ petitions are found to be without any merit and,accordingly, they are dismissed and civil applications are disposed of.[ VII ]WRIT PETITION NO. 10806 OF 2025 ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 10818 OF 202567.These two petitions concern the determination ofboundaries of electoral divisions / electoral colleges as regards Taluka– Degloor, District – Nanded.68.Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioners in these petitions submitted that the arbitrariness of therespondent – authorities is writ large insofar as the said Taluka –Degloor, District – Nanded is concerned. It was submitted that theguidelines contained in Government order dated 12.06.2025 have been 54 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. flagrantly violated by the authorities. It was vehemently submitted thatvillage Yergi has been literally cut-off from the electoral division ofMarkhed in which it was previously included and it has been artificiallyincluded in the electoral division – Karadkhed by the respondent –authorities. It was emphasized that the voters in village Yergi will haveto cross over into the State of Telangana and then come back into theState of Maharashtra. It has been arbitrarily included in the electoraldivision – Karadkhed of the said Taluka. It was further submitted thatvillage Gawandgaon, although being in close proximity of Karadkhed,has been wrongly included in electoral division – Markhed, although itis at a considerable distance from Markhed. It was submitted thatduring earlier elections, these villages were correctly included in theirrespective electoral divisions and the re-determination of theboundaries as a whole, is arbitrary and even malicious.69.In response, Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleadersubmitted that the distance between village Yergi and Karadkhed wastaken into consideration and the proximity of the said village to theValag electoral college, as also the factor of population ratio was takeninto consideration while shifting Yergi into Karadkhed electoral division.The aspect of population ratio was emphasized upon, while justifyingthe inclusion of Gawandgaon in Markhed electoral division. Attention ofthis Court was invited to the reasons recorded by the respondent – 55 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. authorities while disposing of the objection and determining theboundaries of the electoral division.70.This Court has perused the map of Taluka – Degloor,District – Nanded. It has a peculiar shape and, therefore, the zig-zagpattern to be followed as per Government order dated 12.06.2025necessitated certain steps to be taken by the respondent – authorities.The reasons recorded in the document disposing of the objections isalso emphasized upon by the learned Government Pleader. Replyaffidavits show that proper hearing was granted to the objectors andthereupon, the inclusion and exclusion of villages took place.71.We find that reasons have been recorded by therespondent – authorities after considering the objections and applyingthe factors specified in the Government order dated 12.06.2025, whichincluded the maintenance of population ratio with 10% margin,availability of State highway for residents of village Yergi and othersuch factor being taken into consideration while finalizing theboundaries of the electoral divisions / electoral colleges.72.In view of the narrow scope available for this Court tointerfere in such matters, we are unable to agree with the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners that the final notification in respect 56 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. of Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded, needs any interference. Thewrit petition is dismissed. [ VIII ] WRIT PETITION NO. 10814 OF 2025WRIT PETITION NO. 10893 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 10892 OF 2025WRIT PETITION NO. 10894 OF 2025WRIT PETITION NO. 10895 OF 202573.All these petitions concern Taluka – Kaij, District Beed.74.The petitioner in writ petition no. 10814 of 2025 isaggrieved due to rejection of his objection regarding deletion of villageBhatumba from Yusuf Wadgaon electoral division and its inclusion inthe Hol electoral division. The petitioner in writ petition no. 10893 of2025 is aggrieved by rejection of his objection for deletion of villageLadewadgaon from Hol electoral division and its inclusion in Adaselectoral division of Taluka – Kaij, District – Beed.75.The petitioners in writ petition no. 10892 of 2025 wereaggrieved by inclusion of village Ladewadgaon in Hol electoral divisionand claimed that it ought to be brought back into the Adas electoraldivision. 57 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 76.The petitioner in writ petition no. 10894 of 2025 raised anobjection, seeking inclusion of village Bhatumba in Yusuf Wadgaonelectoral division and instead claimed that the same ought to be placedin Hol electoral division.77.Petitioner in writ petition no. 10895 of 2025 is aggrieved byinclusion of village Undri in Adas electoral division and instead claimedthat the said village should be included in Tambwas electoral college ofthe said electoral division.78.Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners in writ petition no. 10814 of 2025 and writ petition no. 10893of 2025, as also learned senior counsel Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh,appearing for the petitioners in writ petition nos. 10892 of 2025, 10894of 2025 and 10895 of 2025 vehemently submitted that all the relevantguidelines contained in Government order dated 12.06.2025 wereblatantly violated by the respondent – authorities while issuing the finalnotification with regard to Taluka – Kaij, District – Beed.79.It was submitted that the specific guidelines pertaining tonatural boundaries for maintaining population balance and others wereviolated, only with a view to benefit certain political formations. In anycase, it was submitted that such villages, as referred to herein-above, 58 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. were earlier correctly included in their respective electoral divisions /electoral colleges and that the boundaries were unnecessarilychanged, thereby disturbing the whole balance of the said Taluka. Itwas submitted that specific boundaries such as highways etc. werecompletely ignored in a most arbitrary manner while finalizing theboundaries of electoral divisions / electoral colleges in the said Talukaof District – Beed.80.On the other hand, Mr. Girase, learned GovernmentPleader submitted that the zig-zag pattern contemplated in theGovernment order dated 12.06.2025 was properly followed and whiledoing so, it was inevitable that the boundaries would have to be re-determined in the light of the guidelines contained in Government orderdated 12.06.2025.81.We have considered the vehement submissions made onbehalf of the petitioners in these petitions in the light of the afore-statedposition of law, which leaves a very narrow scope for this Courtexercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, tointerfere in such matters.82.We have perused the map of Taluka – Kaij, District – Beed.We have also perused the documents recording reasons as to why 59 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. respondent – authorities determined the boundaries of the electoraldivisions / electoral colleges in Taluka – Kaij, District – Beed whileincluding / excluding certain villages. We find that the zig-zag pattern,requiring the respondent – authorities to move in a particular direction,were by and large followed. The nitty gritty of inclusion and exclusionof villages, appears to be based on ensuring the population balance /ratio within the 10% margin and, therefore, it cannot be said that thenotification with regard to Taluka – Kaij, District – Beed, can be said tobe falling short of the requirements of the law.83.The petitioners have failed to convince this Court thatConstitutional bar has been crossed, for this Court to exercise writjurisdiction in their favour. Hence, the petitions are dismissed. [ IX ]WRIT PETITION NO. 10821 OF 2025 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 10824 OF 202584.The petitioner in writ petition no. 10821 of 2025 isaggrieved by rejection of his objection with regard to inclusion of villageLimbodi in Dhamangaon electoral college, in Taluka – Ashti, District –Beed. 60 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 85.The petitioner in writ petition no. 10824 of 2025 isaggrieved by inclusion of village Khilad in Dhanora electoral college ofTaluka – Ashti, District – Beed. It is alleged that the said decisionstaken by the respondent – authorities, while issuing the finalnotification, are arbitrary and violate the guidelines contained inGovernment order dated 12.06.2025 and hence, they deserve to beinterfered with.86.Mr. N.B. Garje, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners in these petitions, referred to the guidelines contained inGovernment order dated 12.06.2025 and submitted that the clausespertaining to zig-zag pattern, natural boundaries and maintenance ofpopulation ratio, have all been violated in these cases.87.Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleader relied upon thereply affidavit placed on record, as also the reasons recorded by theauthorities and the map of Taluka - Ashti, District – Beed, to justify thefinal notification in respect of said taluka.88.We have considered the submissions.89.We have perused the detailed map appended to the finalnotification concerning Taluka – Ashti, District – Beed. We find that thezig-zag pattern, requiring the authorities to proceed from the North 61 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. direction to North-East, then to East and, thereafter, to West and toSouth, has been followed by the respondents. The other guidelinescontained in Government order dated 12.06.2025 have been compliedand thereupon, with the object of maintaining population ratio within10% margin and upon applying the requirement of natural boundaries,certain villages have been included and excluded in the electoraldivisions of Taluka – Ashti, District – Beed.90.Considering the narrow scope of jurisdiction in terms of thelaw referred to herein-above, we do not find any substance in thecontention raised on behalf of the petitioners and hence, the petitionsare dismissed.[ X ]WRIT PETITION NO. 10832 OF 202591.By this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decisiontaken by the respondent – authorities on objections raised by theprivate respondents with regard to three villages in the Taluka beingincluded in a particular electoral division. It was submitted thatalthough, the respondent – District Collector accepted therecommendation of the Deputy Collector / Tahsildar and suggested thatthe objections raised by the private respondents be rejected, therespondent – Divisional Commissioner overruled the same and wrongly 62 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. included villages in Pal electoral division. It was submitted that thereasoning of the Divisional Commissioner, in the present case, iswholly unsustainable and, therefore, interference is warranted.92.Mr. Ravindra Gore, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner relied upon the submissions made in the petitions, in supportof the prayers made therein.93.On the other hand, Mr. Girase, learned GovernmentPleader submitted that the objection in the present case was partlyaccepted by the respondent – Divisional Commissioner for detailedreasons recorded in the document on the record. He relied upon thesame. He further relied upon the map of Taluka – Phulambri, District –Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, placed on record, to contend that all therelevant guidelines contained in the Government order dated12.06.2025 were followed and, therefore, no interference is warranted.94.We have perused the documents on record.95.The document recording reasons by the respondent –authorities indeed shows that the Deputy Collector / Tahsildar and theDistrict Collector had recommended that the objections raised by theprivate respondents should be rejected, but the DivisionalCommissioner partly allowed the objections. We find that while doing 63 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. so, the Divisional Commissioner recorded detailed reasons. Theguideline regarding the population ratio was kept in mind and it wasrecorded that for maintaining the same within 10% margin provided inthe guideline, the objection was being partly accepted. We also findfrom the map that the other guidelines contained in Government orderdated 12.06.2025, including the guideline pertaining to zig-zag pattern,to be followed by the respondent – authorities, was complied with andin such a situation, the inclusion or exclusion of certain villages fromelectoral division cannot be interfered with, in the light of the narrowscope available to this Court in writ jurisdiction, as per settled law. 96.No case is made out for showing any indulgence to thepetitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, thewrit petition is dismissed.97.While deciding the aforesaid writ petitions, this Court hasapplied the settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Courtand this Court in judgments referred to and relied upon, in detailherein-above. It is evident that inclusion or exclusion of villages, is amatter within the domain of the respondent – authorities, so long asthey follow the guidelines laid down in terms of the power availableunder the said Act as well as the Constitution. 64 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 98.We find that the respondent – authorities in these caseshave followed the guidelines specified in the Government order dated12.06.2025. The petitioners have not been able to demonstratearbitrariness on the part of the respondent – authorities or malice ontheir part while dynamically applying the aforesaid guidelines containedin the Government order dated 12.06.2025. Therefore, the petitionerhas failed to make out a case for interference in the final notificationwith regard to the determination of boundaries of electoral divisions /electoral colleges in various Talukas of said Districts.99.We are conscious of the fact that if we lightly interfere insuch matters, it would result in derailing the entire election process.The concern of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for expeditiouslyconducting the elections to the local bodies that have been languishingin the State of Maharashtra, is evident from the above quoted portion ofthe order dated 06.05.2025 passed in SLP (C) No. 19756 of 2021. TheHon’ble Supreme Court expected the elections to be conducted withinfour months. It is obvious that the said timeline could not be adheredto and, therefore, it was all the more necessary, for this Court to hearand dispose of these writ petitions, at the earliest, so that electionprocess can be proceeded further in a timely manner. 65 WP / 10237 / 2025 + JUD. 100.In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed. 101.Rule is discharged.102.All pending applications are disposed of. [ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/