Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pallavi Ashok Kate, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Collector, Osmanabad, which allowed a dispute filed by respondent no.3 under Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, setting aside the petitioner's election as Sarpanch of Irachiwadi Gram Panchayat. The petitioner contended that she was the only candidate after the nomination of respondent no.3 was declared invalid, and the returning officer adjourned the meeting due to chaos and later declared her elected. The Collector, however, found procedural violations in the election process. The petitioner argued that the rules were directory, not mandatory, relying on Abdul Gani Haji Mohamad v. Collector, Akole and Chandrakant Khaire v. Shantaram Kale. The respondents argued that the rules were mandatory and the election was invalid. The court held that the rules under the Act are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The Collector's order was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and confirmed the orders of the Collector and the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Sarpanch Election - Mandatory vs Directory Rules - Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Section 33(5) - The court considered whether the rules governing the election of Sarpanch are mandatory or directory. Held that the rules are mandatory and must be strictly followed; violation renders the election invalid. The Collector's order setting aside the election was upheld. (Paras 1-6) B) Election Law - Dispute under Section 33(5) - Jurisdiction of Collector - Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Section 33(5) - The Collector has jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding the election of Sarpanch and can set aside the election if procedural irregularities are established. The court upheld the Collector's order allowing the dispute filed by respondent no.3. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rules under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act are directory or mandatory, and whether the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch was valid despite procedural violations.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Collector, Osmanabad, and the confirmation by the Additional Divisional Commissioner are upheld.
Law Points
- Rules under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act are mandatory
- not directory
- violation of election rules renders election invalid
- Collector has jurisdiction under Section 33(5) to set aside election for procedural irregularities.
