Oral Judgment:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for respective parties.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Collector, Osmanabad whereby the dispute filed by respondent no.3 under Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act came to be allowed.

4. It is contention of the petitioner that on 12.02.2021, she filed nomination for the post of Sarpanch and during the period of filing nomination, only nomination form of the petitioner was received. Nominations of other candidates were scrutinized and the nomination form of respondent no.3 was declared as invalid and therefore, the petitioner was only candidate in the fray of election, the returning officer because of the chaos in the meeting, adjourned the meeting and adjourned meeting was held at 03.20 on the same day wherein the election officer declared that the petitioner got elected on the post of Sarpanch.

5. Ms. Sakshi Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding was assailed by filing dispute under Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act before the Collector. The District Collector allowed the dispute and the same is confirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.

In support of her contention, she relied upon the case of Abdul Gani Haji Mohamad Vs. Collector, Akole reported in 1963 Mh.L.J. 41, by pointing out that Rule 4 of the Village Panchayat is directory one and not mandatory. She further relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrakant Khaire Vs. Shantaram Kale and Others, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1665. She further submits that in fact, there was no any voting in the said meeting and only declaration was remained and therefore, the returning officer has rightly adjourned the meeting on the same day and declared the petitioner elected. She submits that both the authorities ought not to have allowed the dispute filed by respondent no.3 only on the ground that there was violation of rules and the rules ought to have been read as directory and not mandatory. On all this count, she submits that the order passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned AGP supports the order passed by both the authorities.

7. Having gone through the order passed by both the authorities and more particularly the proceeding which was conducted on 12.02.2021, there is no dispute about the fact that to elect a Sarpanch, the meeting was convened and there were some chaos on account of filing of nominations of petitioner and respondent no.3.

8. It has come on record that the adjourned meeting was not held on that day and same was conducted on the same day at 03.20, once the meeting was adjourned, it is to be in accordance with Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Rules for Sarpanch & Up-sarpanch Rules, 1964.

9. It is useful to refer Rule 11 of the Rules 1964. Rule 11 of the said Rules reads as under :

                   “11. Quorum :-

                   (1) The quorum necessary for the meeting called for the election of the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch shall be one-half of the total number of members of the panchayat.

                   Explanation :- If the number of members of the panchayat is odd, in calculating half the number for the purposes of the quorum, fraction of a member shall be counted as one, e.g. if the number of members is seven, the quorum shall be four and if the number is nine, the quorum shall be five and so on.

                   (2) If within thirty minutes from the time fixed for the meeting, there be no quorum, the Presiding Officer shall adjourn the meeting.

                   (3) If, at any time during the meeting, it is brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer that the number of members present fall short of the required quorum, the Presiding Officer, after waiting for a period of not less than fifteen minutes and not more than half an hour, shall adjourn the meeting.

                   (4) The meeting adjourned under sub-rule (2) or (3) of rule 11 shall be held again on the next day at the same place and hour. A notice of such adjournment shall be fixed on the notice board at the office of the panchayat and the election shall be held at such adjourned meeting or at any subsequent adjournment thereof whether there be quorum present or not.”

10. Therefore, once the meeting was adjourned, the returning officer requires to held the meeting on the next day as per Rule 11 and therefore, the procedure which is required to be followed about meeting needs to be followed on the adjourned date. Herein the case, though the adjourned meeting was held on the same day at 03.20 wherein the petitioner got elected, on this point the District Collector has allowed the dispute setting aside the elections of the petitioner and the same was confirmed.

11. Considering the language of Rule 11 which is mandatory in nature and rules mandates that the adjourned meeting is to be convened on the next day, therefore, it was not expected on the part of returning officer to hold the meeting on the same day at 03.20 p.m., record clearly shows that as per minutes of meeting which was recorded by the returning officer, he conducted adjourned meeting on the same day and the meeting which was conducted in view of Rule 11 and thus the said meeting was illegal.

12. Therefore, the Additional Collector has rightly allowed the dispute filed by respondent no.3. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of both the authorities under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I pass the following order :

ORDER

(I) The petition is dismissed.

(II) No order as to cost.