Bombay High Court
Muzaffar Papabhai Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal … on 13 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:7747-DB
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
jvs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
BALAJI
signed by
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 11878 OF 2025
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2026.02.14
13:47:48
+0530
Vikram Kashinathrao Khutwad .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11930 OF 2025
Sanjay Pundlik Tungar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14420 OF 2025
Sachin Vinayak Gharat .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13518 OF 2025
Jitendra Awhad C/o Satish Awhad .. Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14820 OF 2025
Dilip S/o Shashikumar Naik .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14821 OF 2025
Dilip S/o Shashikumar Naik .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14842 OF 2025
Shaikh Afroz Noroddin .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14851 OF 2025
Gautam S/o Amrutrao Rohinkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14886 OF 2025
Santosh S/o Kisanrao Kolhe .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14875 OF 2025
Hari and Haribhau S/o Ganpat Thote .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14854 OF 2025
Muzaffar Papabhai Shaikh .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14859 OF 2025
Annasaheb S/o Reoji Patil Davkhar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
2
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 14855 OF 2025
Shaikh Afsar Nawaboddin .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14874 OF 2025
Saiprasad Suryakantrao Jatalwar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14878 OF 2025
Sanjay Vaijnathrao Jagatkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15412 OF 2025
Kiran Shankar Bhoir .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15003 OF 2025
Sathishchandra Rothe Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15006 OF 2025
Rahul S/o Ramkrushna .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15015 OF 2025
3
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
Syed Farooq Syed Karim .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15013 OF 2025
Vandana W/o Rajesh Wankhade .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15122 OF 2025
Sidharthkumar S/o Digambarrao
Surywanshi .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15127 OF 2025
Hemant S/o Balasaheb Jadhav .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15744 OF 2025
Anwarlal Shaikh .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15778 OF 2025
Duneshwar S/o Suryabhan Pethe .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15780 OF 2025
Shakil Hamid Mansuri .. Petitioner
4
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15783 OF 2025
Anil S/o Sukhdeo Pimple .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15782 OF 2025
Vishal Agrawal .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15798 OF 2025
Gram Panchayat Chikhalgaon & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15797 OF 2025
Vidyadhar Shankar Bazare .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15808 OF 2025
Amol Rajaram Deshingkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11880 OF 2025
Dnyanoba Bhiva Kamble .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
5
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15121 OF 2025
Sidharthkumar Suryanwanshi .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12935 OF 2025
Bhausaheb Sukdeo Gaikwad & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 34566 OF 2025
Ankush Markand Ahire .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15299 OF 2025
Siddharth Sonaji Ingle .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14728 OF 2025
Sachin Jalindar Sawant .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14753 OF 2025
Kailas Devidas Pagare .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
6
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 14767 OF 2025
Anita W/o Sajjanrao Salunke .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14809 OF 2025
Vishnudas Appasaheb Jagtap .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14828 OF 2025
Nilesh Popat Satpute .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14848 OF 2025
Dipankar Satish Bachhav .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14881 OF 2025
Nilesh Popat Satpute .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14892 OF 2025
Vishal Hanmant Aglave .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14981 OF 2025
7
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
Sagar Vasantrao Shitole .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14966 OF 2025
Vikas Shivaji Dinde & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14967 OF 2025
Sagar Bajrang Kamble .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15017 OF 2025
Nishant Satish Bayas .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15018 OF 2025
Dinesh Tarachand Bansod .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15026 OF 2025
Vasantrao S/o Namdev Jagtap .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15125 OF 2025
Sahebrao S/o Kishanrao Shirsat .. Petitioner
Versus
8
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15741 OF 2025
Govind S/o Abhanrao Mutkule .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15743 OF 2025
Ravikant S/o Raojirao Deshmukh .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15745 OF 2025
Mohammad Ziya S/o Mohammad Usman
Qureshi .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15807 OF 2025
Madan Suryabhanji Jiddewar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16174 OF 2025
Kalidas Devidas Pagar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...
(Appearances vide-Appendix-I)
...
9
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
Reserved on : 9th December 2025.
Pronounced on : 13th February 2026
JUDGMENT
Per Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ :
WP No.11878 of 2025 WP No.11930 of 2025 WP No.14420 of 2025
WP No.13518 of 2025 WP No.14820 of 2025 WP No.14821 of 2025
WP No.14842 of 2025 WP No.14851 of 2025 WP No.14886 of 2025
WP No.14875 of 2025 WP No.14854 of 2025 WP No.14859 of 2025
WP No14855 of 2025 WP No.14874 of 2025 WP No.14878 of 2025
WP No.15412 of 2025 WP No.15003 of 2025 WP No.15006 of 2025
WP No.15015 of 2025 WP No.15013 of 2025 WP No.15122 of 2025
WP No.15127 of 2025 WP No.15744 of 2025 WP No.15778 of 2025
WP No.15780 of 2025 WP No.15783 of 2025 WP No.15782 of 2025
WP No.15798 of 2025 WP No.15797 of 2025 WP No.15808 of 2025In re: Delimitation:
In this batch of writ petitions, the orders passed by the
respondent-authority for the ward formation, ward formulation
notifications etc. have been challenged primarily on the ground that
the objections raised by the petitioners were decided ignoring the
applicable guidelines or the objections have not been decided at all.
2. The writ petitions which according to the learned counsels for
the petitioners required the reply-affidavit from the respondents on
factual aspects have been segregated and listed on a different date.
3. The orders passed by this Court on different dates in the
present proceedings may give some indication as to how the
individual voters continued to file writ petitions even after the final
hearing had started. The orders dated 7 th November 2025, 27th
November 2025 and 28th November 2025 record the broad outline of
10
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties. These orders are
reproduced herein-below:
Order dated 7th November 2025:
“Along with Writ Petition Nos. 14981 of 2025 and 13371 of 2025, the
following matters are taken on production Board:
PRODUCTION BOARD.
Sr. No. Petition Number
501 WP/11930/2025
502 WP/12303/2025
503 WP/12368/2025
504 WP/12369/2025
505 WP/12935/2025
506 WP/13458/2025
509 WP/15121/2025
510 WP/15122/2025
511 WP/15123/2025
512 WP/15125/2025
513 WP/15127/2025
2. Let certified copies of the paper-books in all these matters be supplied to
the Registry by the learned counsels for the petitioners in these petitions.
3. In this batch of writ petitions, different issues pertaining to delimitation
exercise, caste category, validity of rules etc are raised. Mrs. Neha S.
Bhide, the learned Government Pleader has prepared a category-wise
chart of the writ petitions which were listed on previous dates.
4. The learned counsels for the petitioners shall provide true translated
copies of the Rules, circulars etc. if needed for adjudication in these
matters.
5. Mr. Anil Anturkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 13518 of 2025 referred to an order dated 4th May 2022
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
19756 of 2021 titled “Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors.” and made submissions with reference to the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as to delimitation exercise conducted by the State
Election Commission prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act on
11th March 2022. The other learned counsels appearing for the petitioners
in other writ petitions have adopted arguments made by Mr. Anil Anturkar,
the learned senior counsel.
6. The submission made at the Bar is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did
11
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docnot pass any order modifying the effective date as to taking into
consideration delimitation exercise carried by the Election Commission. In
Writ Petition No.12216 of 2025, it is contended that the State government
shall have no powers to extend the Amendment Act to the Schedule areas.
On the other hand, Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, the learned Government Pleader
has opposed these writ petitions referring to the orders dated 6 th May
2025 and 16th September 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19756 of 2021 titled “Rahul Ramesh Wagh
u. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.” and submitted that the elections for
the local bodies in the State of Maharashtra have to be conducted and
completed before 31st January 2026. While fixing such deadline, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court issued certain directions to the State Election
Commission relating to preparation for conducting elections and conclusion
of the elections on/or before the deadline so fixed. She further submitted
that there can be an issue regarding maintainability of the writ petitions in
view of the notification for elections.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made on behalf of the rival
parties, the prayers for interim relief are refused. However, we are inclined
to grant short time for filing reply affidavits by the contesting respondents.
Let reply affidavits be filed on/or before 24th November 2025. Permission
to file rejoinder affidavits is granted within a period of next three days
on/or before 27th November 2025.
8. Post these matters on 27th November 2025 under the heading “For final
disposal”.
9. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special
Leave to Appeal No.(C) No.19756 of 2021, we are not required to indicate
that parties shall complete the pleadings and produce necessary
documents on record. The learned counsels for the petitioners shall
prepare short “notes” of legal issues involved in this batch of writ petitions
category-wise. They shall also prepare convenience compilation containing
the relevant Acts, Rules, Circulars etc. We would further indicate that this
order passed by this Court having taken cognizance of the writ petitions,
inasmuch as, a direction has been issued to the respondents to file their
reply affidavits shall not be construed as if the Election Commission or the
State government shall not proceed with issuance of notice etc. and the
preparation for conducting elections of all local bodies within the stipulated
time. However, all actions taken by the respondents shall be subject to
outcome of these writ petitions.”
…
Order dated 27th November 2025:
“It was on 3rd November 2025 that a few writ petitions were taken on
board upon a mentioning by the learned counsels for the petitioners. After
noticing the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16th12
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docSeptember 2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19756 of 2021 titled
“Rahul Ramesh Wagh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.“, hearing of the
writ petitions was deferred for 4 th November 2025.
2. On that day, a few writ petitions filed at the Benches of Bombay High
Court at Nagpur and Aurangabad were mentioned and transferred at the
request made by the learned counsels for the parties. As it would appear
at a glance on the order dated 4th November 2025, the learned counsels for
the petitioners were directed to supply certified copies of the paper-books
of those writ petitions as records could not have been summoned within 24
hours.
3. On 7th November 2025, a bunch of writ petitions was again taken on
Production Board and a similar direction was issued to the learned
counsels appearing for the petitioners to supply certified copies of the
paper-books to the Registry.
4. We heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and their
submissions are recorded in the order dated 7 th November 2025. The
respondents were granted an opportunity to file reply-affidavit and the
prayer for interim relief was refused. In paragraph 9 of the order dated 7 th
November 2025, following directions were issued by this Court:-
“9. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave to Appeal No.(C) No.19756 of 2021, we are not
required to indicate that parties shall complete the pleadings and
produce necessary documents on record. The learned counsels for
the petitioners shall prepare short “notes” of legal issues involved
in this batch of writ petitions category-wise. They shall also
prepare convenience compilation containing the relevant Acts,
Rules, Circulars etc. We would further indicate that this order
passed by this Court having taken cognizance of the writ petitions,
inasmuch as, a direction has been issued to the respondents to file
their reply affidavits shall not be construed as if the Election
Commission or the State government shall not proceed with
issuance of notice etc. and the preparation for conducting elections
of all local bodies within the stipulated time. However, all actions
taken by the respondents shall be subject to outcome of these writ
petitions.”
5. Today as many as 22 fresh matters are listed at serial no.903 on the
supplementary Board. Those matters were taken up in the morning
session and the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners were
requested to give brief details about their matters as to in which category
the writ petitions would fall. Mrs. Neha Bhide, the learned State counsel
informs the Court that only few of the learned counsels have supplied such
details but she has prepared a chart broadly indicating the category under
which those writ petitions would fall. We have also 51 main matters at
serial No.1 on the main Board alongwith the matters at item nos.5, 6, 7
13
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
and 66.
6. At this stage, Mrs. Pranita Ambekar, Sheristedar of this Court has
tendered a note which indicates that there is a request for transfer of two
writ petitions from Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court and one each from
the Benches of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad and Circuit Bench
at Kolhapur.
7. We are recording the previous proceedings for the reason that the
parties had information about the forthcoming elections several months
before the notification for elections but the writ petetions are being filed
even as on today on one pretext or the other. In such a situation, it is
impracticable to issue direction to the respondent-Authorities to file their
counter affidavits adverting to the factual aspects of the matter.
8. Mr. D.P. Palodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners begins his
arguments in Writ Petition No.14828 of 2025 referring to an order passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.27739 of
2025 which was dismissed on 25 th September 2025 with liberty to the
petitioners who had approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.5062 of 2025, that in the event any
anomaly emerges as a result of the ensuing elections, the petitioners may
take appropriate remedial steps by approaching the appropriate forum for
appropriate relief.
9. By an order dated 19th September 2025, Writ Petition No.5062 of 2025
came to be dismissed observing that Rule XII has been introduced in the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation
of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 2025 to give effect to the reservation policy.
In that order, this Court referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in “Kishorchandra Chhaganlal Rathod vs. Union of India and Others“
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1879 and held that no material was produced by the
petitioners before the Court and the writ petition was based on
hypothetical situation.
10. Mr. Palodkar refers to Rule IV of the Reservation of Seats Rules, 2025
and submits that it was with a view to effectuate the mandate under
Article 243-D of the Constitution of India that Rule IV was introduced
which envisages rotation of seats for reservation to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Castes and women. The learned
counsel endeavours to demonstrate that the operation of Rule XII has
created anamolous situation inasmuch as reservation for electoral division
or divisions in descending order as per the population of the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward class of citizens and women may
again go backward and a particular electoral division may again be
reserved for any particular class or category. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has refered to the decision in “Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay
and Others“, (2021) 10 SCC 306.
11. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are controverted
and opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
14
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
12. For further arguments on behalf of the State-respondent and the State
Election Commission, post the matter tomorrow, that is, on 28 th November,
2025 high on board. Part heard.
…
Order dated 28th November 2025:
“Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
in Writ Petition Nos.13371 of 2025 and 13007 of 2025 referred to various
provisions under Rotation of Reservation Rules and the constitutional
provisions relating to self-government and submits that Rule XII of the
Rotation of Reservation Rules has to be read harmoniously with the other
provisions under the said Rules. The learned counsel further submits that
taking into account the object behind the rotation of seats, Rule XII should
be read in such a manner as not to frustrate the legislative intention.
Rather it should be construed in furtherance of the object behind rotation of
seats. He refers to the decisions in “Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Hindustan Bulk Carriers” (2003) 3 SCC 57 and “Sultana Begum v. Prem
Chand Jain” (1997) 1 SCC 373 to support this submission. This is also a
submission made at the Bar that the order dated 16th September 2025
passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.19756 of 2021 shall not
constitute res-judicata to entertain the writ petitions filed in the High Court
challenging the validity of Rule XII of the Rotation of Reservation Rules.
The learned counsel states that the rotation of seats in the State of
Maharashtra as to the categories of Backward Class citizen and women
completed its full cycle but the rotation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes seats is still midway and if Rule XII is given its literal construction
that would be contrary to the Constitutional mandate.
2. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsel has referred to a chart at
page no.49 in Writ Petition No.13007 of 2025.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.14848 of
2025, 14966 of 2025, 14967 of 2025, 15808 of 2025, 15745 of 2025,
15782 of 2025 have also laid a stress on enforcement and implementation
of Rule IV of the Rotation of Reservation Rules and not to permit the
respondent-authorities to take this election as the first election.
4. The learned counsels for the other petitioners in this category of writ
petitions have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. D. P. Palodkar and
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsels.
At 04: 30 p.m.
5. Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, the learned State Counsel takes us to the stand
taken by respondent-State of Maharashtra in its short reply affidavit and
sets up a ground of non-maintainability of these writ petitions on the
ground that a similar writ petition was dismissed by Division Bench of this
Court at Nagpur Bench and a Special Leave Petition filed against the said
order has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mrs. Neha S.
Bhide, the learned State Counsel submits that in view of the significant
15::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docchanges in the territorial/physical limits of the rural areas under the
districts and blocks, there was a need for a fresh delimitation exercise
and, in consequence thereof, there were changes in the number of
councilors in the Zilla Panchayats and the Panchayat Samities. It is further
submitted that under proviso to sub-rule (3) of section 274 of the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, there was
a provision which grants permission to the State Government to dispense
with the condition of prior publication.
6. Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye, the learned counsel for the State Election
Commission submits that being a constitutional body, the State Election
Commission is bound by the mandate under Article 243K of the
Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submitted that the
elections to the local bodies are governed by the Statutes enacted by the
Maharashtra State legislature and the State Election Commission is bound
to conduct the said elections as per the existing laws and the rules.
7. For hearing the writ petitions challenging the delimitation, exercise
directly or indirectly, post these matters on 2 nd December 2025. To be
listed High on Board.
8. However, in view of a specific ground raised as recorded in the order
dated 7th November 2025, a short reply may be filed by the State-
respondent as regards the recent amendments carried out in the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.”
4. In Writ Petition Nos. 14851 of 2025, 15122 of 2025 and 15744
of 2025, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the State-
respondents not to finalize the ward formulation till the time their
objections are decided. In Writ Petition No. 14784 of 2025, the
petitioner has alleged that the delimitation exercise was carried out in
such a manner that it has resulted in grossly unequal population
distribution among the wards. In Writ Petition No. 14785 of 2025, the
objections raised by the petitioners have been rejected by a reasoned
order. In Writ Petition No. 15006 of 2025, Block No. 6100 was
removed from Ward No. 13 and included in Ward No. 5. According to
this petitioner, clause 5.5.3(b) of the guidelines which puts
restrictions on the division of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
settlement was violated and the population of Scheduled Caste has
changed in each ward. In Writ Petition No. 14402 of 2025, the final
16
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
ward formulation Notification dated 3 rd October 2025 has been
challenged on the ground that the objections raised by the petitioner
to the division of Kolshet area into two wards, namely, Ward No. 2
and Ward No. 8 were not considered. In Writ Petition No. 15780 of
2025, the petitioner raised objections to the alteration of boundaries
of Ward No.11. He was afforded an opportunity of hearing on
4th September 2025 and the objections raised by him were rejected by
the order dated 26th September 2025.
5. We would refer in detail the pleadings in Writ Petition No.14842
of 2025 which has narrated some factual background facts. In this
writ petition, the Final Notification dated 26 th September 2025 in
respect of ward formation and reservation in Paithan Municipal
Council in the district of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar have been
challenged. The petitioner has pleaded that the State of Maharashtra
issued an order on 10th June 2025 prescribing a methodology for
ward formation. On 18th August 2025, the Divisional Commissioner
published the draft ward formation and invited objections and
suggestions. The petitioner’s grievance pertained to Ward No.11 with
respect to which he raised his objection on 31 st August 2025 to the
effect that the maximum population for the said ward had exceeded
and the same could have been cured by shifting the Block No.6102
having population of 440 to the adjacent Ward No.12. According to
the petitioner, the final draft formation indicated that Ward Nos.1, 3,
8 and 11 were reserved for Scheduled Caste category but that was
contrary to the draft ward formation wherein Ward Nos.1, 3, 8 and 9
were shown as reserved for Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner
has pleaded that by not maintaining the population percentage and
shifting of Enumeration Blocks, the respondents have contravened
the Constitutional mandate under Article 243 of the Constitution of
17
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
India. The petitioner has further pleaded that the Final Notification
dated 26th September 2025 has been issued in breach of the order
dated 10th June 2025 and, in particular, clauses 5.3 and 5.4.
6. On the other hand, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council,
Paithan in the district of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, has taken
specific objection to the maintainability of this writ petition inter-alia
on the grounds that (i) there is a statutory remedy under section 21 of
the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965 to challenge any election through an
Election Petition; (ii) Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution of
India put limits on the powers and a specific bar on interference by
the Courts in electoral matters and (iii) the writ petition involves a
disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the writ
proceeding. It is stated that the Paithan Municipal Council has been
divided into 12 wards following the methodology provided under the
order dated 10th June 2025 from the Department of Urban
Development. The total population of Paithan Municipal Council is
41,536 as per the census of the year 2011. There shall be 11 dual-
member wards and one triple-member ward which is Ward No.12 and
the Municipal Council shall consist of 25 ward members and one
president. The decision for formation of 11 dual-member wards has
been arrived at by dividing the average population of 41,536 by 25
and the figure so obtained is multiplied by 2. Ward No.12 has been
created as a triple-member ward by adopting the same methodology
applying the multiplier of 3. It is stated that the statutory limits for
creation of dual-member ward ranges between minimum 2,991 to
maximum 3,655. The statutory limits for triple-member wards are
minimum 4,486 to maximum 5,482. The administrative decision are
transparent, documented and reviewed by the authorized officer. The
18
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
delimitation exercise has been conducted in a transparent manner
and as per the timeline indicated in the order dated 16 th September
2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A final notification was
issued on 26th September 2025 and it was published on
29th September 2025. The final notification was prepared in a non-
partisan and fair manner as per the available data and the entire
electoral process was governed by the Geographical Contiguity under
clauses 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 and the Community Interest clause 5.5.3. The
Geographical Contiguity has been followed in the process of
delimitation by utilizing clear and recognizable natural boundaries
such as roads, rivers, nallas and city survey numbers to safeguard
the community interest. The focus was to minimize the division of
settlements to consolidate the social amenities and areas related to
community benefits within a single ward. The Geographical
Contiguity and Community Interest factors are non-population based
criterion aimed at promoting citizen convenience and optimization of
public resources. In the process of ward formation, clause 5.5.4
which provides that the Enumeration Block should not be split, was
followed save and except under unavoidable circumstances where the
marginal deviation of ± 10% population ratio was permitted. In the
ward formation exercise in the Paithan Municipal Council, the Chief
Officer has endorsed that there was no split of the Enumeration
Block. The entire exercise of delimitation has been documented and
presented in a tabular form as under :-
Ward Type Total Average Maximum Minimum Statutory Basis
Seats Population Limit Limit
(+10%) (-10%)
Dual- 22 3323 3655 2991 URBAN
member DEVELOPMENT
ward DEPARTMENT
(Wards 1- Order MCO-
11) 2025/Pr.Kr.24 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:22 ::: WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc 2/Na Vi-14, Cl.5.4, Schedule I Three- 3 4984 5482 4486 URBAN member DEVELOPMENT ward (Ward DEPARTMENT 12) Order MCO- 2025/Pr.Kr.24 2/NaVi-14, Cl.5.4, Schedule I
7. The allegation regarding removal of the Enumeration Block
No.2700 from Ward No.9 and inclusion of the same in Ward No.8 has
been specifically denied and justified on the basis of the delimitation
rules under clause 5.5.3. It is stated that the population of the
Enumeration Block No.2700 is 128 out of which 122 voters belong to
the Scheduled Castes category. The objection filed by Mr. Ajit Ramesh
Pagare was that if this block is included in Ward No.8 then it would
consolidate the population of the Scheduled Castes and make it easier
for them to avail the benefits under the Dalit Vasti Sudhar Yojana
scheme. The decision of the Chief Officer is based on clause 5.5.3 and
guided on the premise of collocating a high-concentration population
of the Scheduled Castes to serve the community interest and ensure
access to development funds. The decision of the Chief Officer has
been approved by the authorized officer. It is further stated that the
shift of Enumeration Block No.2700 had a minor impact on the total
population of Ward No.9 which dropped from 3,086 to 2,958. Thus,
the marginal deviation which is approximately 1.1% below the
minimum limit was necessitated for prioritizing the Community
Interest under clause 5.5.3 and to maintain the Enumeration Block
integrity under clause 5.5.4. As regards shifting of Enumeration Block
No.5301 with population of 611, it is stated that it was necessary for
connecting the population breach in Ward No.11. The objection dated
31st August 2015 did not indicate anything about Enumeration Block
20::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docNo.6102 and it was completely vague. Ward No.11 had population of
3,657 which marginally exceeded the statutory maximum limit of
3,655 for dual-member ward. Therefore, the objection no.6 which
claimed transfer of Enumeration Block No.5301 to Ward No.12 which
had population of 611, was accepted and moved from Ward No.11. By
doing so, the final population of Ward No.11 became 3,046 and thus
came within the statutory limit of 3,655. The shifting of Enumeration
Block No.5301 has been approved by the authorized officer and Ward
No.11 and Enumeration Block No.5301 were moved to Ward No.12.
According to the respondents, this decision has, in fact, corrected the
imbalance in Ward No.12 which gave population above the statutory
limit of 5,482 for triple-member ward. It was necessary to maintain
the guidelines under clause 5.5.4 not to split Enumeration Block
No.5301 and the entire population of Enumeration Block No.5301
was therefore kept intact and shifted to Ward No.12. It is stated that
this trade-off which resulted in the breach of Secondary Population
Ratio rule is permissible under the guidelines and favored by the
mandatory EB Integrity rule. It is stated that the entire decision
making process has been documented and formally certified vide
“Appendix 6”.
8. In the common reply filed in all the writ petitions on behalf of
the respondent nos. 3 to 6, the respondent-authorities have taken the
following stand:
“10. It would be relevant to note that some of the divisions in Vidarbha
Region where the ward formation was completed, witnessed a challenge to the
same in multiple Petitions before this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court vide
judgments dated 22nd August, 2025 held that process adopted by the State
and its officers towards ward formation to be just and proper and in
accordance with law. The Petitions were accordingly dismissed. Copies of
judgment delivered in Writ Petition no.4627/25 and 4667/25 are annexed
hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit R-5. Perusal of the judgments would
show that this Hon’ble Court had put great emphasis on the fact over the
21::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docyears, naturally as also eventually there happens physical changes in the
areas and boundaries of the villages. This factual aspect of expansion and
depletion of villages area affecting placement of population, necessitates ward
formation for every election. In other words change in physical status of
boundaries and area of the concerned villages is considered to be a major
factor for undertaking formation of fresh wards or delimitation of wards by this
Hon’ble Court.
11. I say that there have been substantial changes to the territorial
limits/physical boundaries of the rural area of the districts and blocks for the
purposes of the 1961 Act. Illustratively in view of the changes to the territorial
limits of various municipalities, certain areas which formerly were part of a
rural area of district have been included within the territorial limits of
municipalities, thereby depleting the population. Such changes in the physical
boundaries/ territorial limits have also changed the number of electoral
divisions for Zilla Parishads and electoral colleges for Panchayat Samitis. I
crave leave to refer to and rely upon the details of such districts in which there
has been a change of territorial limits on account of certain areas having been
included within the territorial limits of various municipalities, when necessary.
12. The contention of the Petitioner that the 2025 Rules, in particular Rule
12 thereof, violates the mandate of Article 243D of the Constitution is
misconceived. The 2025 Rules provide for the rotation of reserved seats across
constituencies. By the 2025 Rules the State Government having maintained the
policy of rotation in its discretion has, in light of the aforesaid, decided to make
the rotation applicable for future elections after the coming into force of such
rules. Merely because 1996 Rules were in operation would not preclude the
State Government to come out with fresh set of Rules when it is still maintained
the policy of rotation. The State Government was equipped with sufficient data
which indicated that subsequent to the previous elections in 2017-2019, there
were various changes as detailed above and reconstitution of wards became
necessary. It is because of such reconstitution of wards, changes to the number
of electoral division and electoral colleges that the State found it appropriate to
provide new Rules to prescribe the manner and rotation of reservation of seats
for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class of citizen and
Women in electoral divisions and electoral colleges. Such mode is acceptable
mode in law.
13. The challenge to the 2025 Rules on the ground that such rules were
notified without satisfying the requirement of prior publication as contemplated
under sub-section (3) of section 274 of the 1961 Act is misplaced. The proviso
to sub-section (3) of Section 274 of the 1961 Act entitles the State to dispense
with the condition of prior publication, if in its subjective satisfaction,
circumstances exist which render it necessary. I say that the preamble of the
Notification dated 20th August 2025 notifying the 2025 Rules itself indicates
that the State was satisfied about existence of circumstance which rendered it
necessary to take immediate action for the purposes of conduct of elections22
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docunder the 1961 Act and dispense with condition of previous publication. Being
so satisfied, the State taking recourse of the proviso appended to Sub section 3
of Section 274 of the 1961 Act, chose to dispense with requirement of previous
publication. As indicated above, the State was under the directives of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court obligated to conduct and conclude elections within a
period of 4 months and also in light of the aforesaid changes, that State had
reasons to take recourse to Proviso. The subjective satisfaction of the State is
based on objective material and cannot be interfered with. It is, therefore,
submitted that power to dispense with previous publication has been rightly
resorted by the State and there is no reason to set aside the 2025 Rules on
such ground.
14. The challenge to the 2025 Rules on the ground that it has been notified
without complying with sub-section (4) of Section 274 of the 1961 Act is equally
misplaced and premature. Sub-Section (4) of Section 274 of the 1971 Act
contemplates the laying of rules made thereunder before each House of the
State Legislature as soon as may be after they are made. Such laying of Rules
is not required before publication. I say that the 2025 Rules will be duly laid
before each House of the State Legislature as required under Section 274 of the
1961 Act in the forthcoming legislative session.”
9. Ms. Neeta Karnik, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 11878 of 2025, Mr. Shrishailya S. Deshmukh, the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11930 of 2025
and Mr. Rashid Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 15299 of 2025 made their submissions on behalf of the
respective petitioners. The learned counsel for the parties in other
writ petitions in which a challenge has been laid directly or indirectly
to the delimitation exercise have made similar arguments. The
submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners are that
the delimitation exercise has been carried out ignoring the
government guidelines and (ii) the ward formation Notifications are
arbitrary and illegal.
10. Mr. Anil Anturkar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 13518 of 2025 referred to the order dated 4 th May
2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19756 of 2021 and submitted
that the delimitation exercise conducted by the State Election
23
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
Commission in the year 2017 shall be the basis for formulation of
wards and the effective date indicated in the order dated 4 th May 2022
has not been modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
subsequent orders passed by it. Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, the learned
counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13515 of 2025 and
Mr. Shraddhanand Bhutada, the learned counsel for the petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 15778 of 2025 adopted the arguments advanced by
Mr. Anil Anturkar, the learned senior counsel.
11. Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, the learned Government Pleader contended
that these writ petitions are not maintainable on a mere allegation of
violation of some executive instructions. There is a bar in law to
entertain a writ petition in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India if interference by the Court is likely to
obstruct the processes of the election. It is submitted that the State
Government has taken steps in the right earnest to complete the
election processes before 31st January 2026 as directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “Rahul Ramesh Wagh”. Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, the
learned Government Pleader and Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, the learned
Additional Government Pleader submitted that a fresh delimitation
exercise has been undertaken in view of significant changes in the
territorial and physical limits of the rural areas and the
municipalities. Therefore, there is bound to be a change in the
number of members in Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads. The
learned counsels appearing for the respondents were in unison in
their opposition to these writ petitions challenging ward formation,
Final Notification etc. being merely a pretext to derail the ongoing
election processes.
12. The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,
1961 (in short “MZPPS Act”) was enacted for establishment of the Zilla
24
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis in rural areas and to assign them
local government functions and also to entrust them the execution of
certain work and development schemes of the five-year plans. The
Preamble to the MZPPS Act further recites that the object behind the
enactment of the said Act is to decentralize the powers and functions
under certain enactments and to promote the development of
democratic institutions. The participation by the people in the plans
of the government and in the local and governmental affairs is a
purpose behind enactment of the MZPPS Act.
13. The statutory regime under the MZPPS Act now has backing
under the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 which relates to
the Panchayats and came into force with effect from 24 th April 1993.
Part IX deals with the constitution and composition of the
Panchayats, duration of the Panchayats, reservation of seats in the
Panchayats and elections of the Panchayats. This is the scheme
under Part IX for local self- government that the Panchayats at the
village, intermediate and district levels shall be constituted in every
State in accordance with the provisions of Part IX subject to a rider
that the Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted
in a State which has a population not exceeding twenty lakhs. The
duration of every Panchayat has been fixed for five years under Article
243-E. Clause (3)(b) in Article 243-E provides that an election to
constitute a Panchayat shall be completed before the expiration of a
period of six months from the date of its dissolution. The continuance
and enforcement of any provision of any law relating to Panchayats in
force in a State even though inconsistent with the provisions of Part
IX and which continued to be in force by virtue of Article 243-N shall
continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent
Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one
25
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
year from such commencement, whichever was earlier.
14. The constitution of the Municipality is also conceived in a
similar manner under Article 243-Q. The constitution of a Nagar
Panchayat for a transitional area, a Municipal Council for a smaller
urban area and a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area is
contemplated under Article 243-Q to be in accordance with the
provisions of Part IX A. The proviso to clause (1) to Article 243-Q
carves out an exception to the aforementioned general provisions to
the extent that the size of the area, the provisions for municipal
services or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in
that area and such other factors as the Governor may deem fit, may
be the factors for not constituting the Municipality under clause (1) to
Article 243-Q.
15. Section 12 of the MZPPS Act provides that every district shall be
divided into electoral divisions for the purpose of election of
Councillors and there shall be a separate election for each electoral
division. Such an exercise shall be undertaken by the State
government or an officer authorized by it with the approval of the
State Election Commission. First proviso to sub-section (1) puts a
condition that while creating the electoral divisions to the effect that
the ratio between the population of each electoral division and the
total number of Councillors to be elected for the Zilla Parishad shall,
so far as practicable, be the same throughout the Zilla Parishad area.
Second proviso mandates that not less than two electoral divisions
shall be allotted to each Panchayat Samiti while carving out the
electoral divisions. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the
MZPPS Act provides for reservation in the seats to be filled up by
election in a Zilla Parishad for the persons belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of citizens and women as
26
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
may be determined by the State Election Commission in the
prescribed manner. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 12 lays
down as under :-
“(b) the seats to be reserved for the persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in a Zilla Parishad shall
bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of
seats to be filled in by direct election in that Zilla Parishad as the
population of the Scheduled Castes or as the case may be, the
Scheduled Tribes, in that Zilla Parishad area bears to the total
population of that area and such seats shall be allotted by rotation to
different electoral division in a Zilla Parishad:”
16. Third proviso further mandates that in a Zilla Parishad
comprising entirely the Scheduled Areas, the seats to be reserved for
the Scheduled Tribes shall not be less than one half of the total
number of seats in the Zilla Parishad. Section 12 of the MZPPS Act
reads as under :-
“12. Division of District into electoral divisions
(1) The State Government or an officer authorized by it, with the
approval of the State Election Commission shall, for the purpose of
election of Councillors divide every District] into electoral divisions the
territorial extent of any such division not being out side the limits of the
same Block each returning one Councillor, and there shall be a separate
election for each electoral division :
Provided that, such electoral division shall be divided in such a manner
that the ratio between the population of each electoral division and the
total number of Councillors to be elected for the Zilla Parishad shall, so
far as practicable, be the same through out the Zilla Parishad area:
Provided further that, while distributing such electoral divisions among
the Panchayat Samitis, not less than two electoral divisions shall be
allotted to each Panchayat Samiti.
(2)(a) In the seats to be filled in by election in a Zilla Parishad there shall
be seats reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of citizens and women, as may be
determined by the State Election Commission in the prescribed manner;
(b) the seats to be reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in a Zilla Parishad shall bear, as
nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be
filled in by direct election in that Zilla Parishad as the population of the27
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docScheduled Castes or as the case may be the Scheduled Tribes in that
Zilla Parsishad area bears to the total population of that area and such
seats shall be allotted by rotation to different electoral division in a Zilla
Parishad:
Provided that, in a Zilla Parishad comprising entirely the Scheduled
Areas, the seats to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes shall not be
less than one half of the total number of seats in the Zilla Parishad:
Provided further that, the reservation for the Scheduled Tribes in a Zilla
Parishad falling only partially in the Scheduled Areas shall be in
accordance with the provision of cause (b);
Provided also that one-half of the total number of seats so reserved shall
be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the
case may be, the Scheduled Tribes;
(c) the seats to be reserved for persons belonging to the category of
Backward Class of citizens shall be 27 per cent. of the total number of
seats to be filled in by election in a Zilla Parishad and such seats shall
be allotted by rotation to different electoral divisions in a Zilla Parishad :
Provided that, in a Zilla Parishad comprising entirely the Scheduled
Areas, the seats to be reserved for the persons belonging to the
Backward Class of citizens shall be the seats remaining, if any, after
reservation of the seats for the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled
Castes :
Provided further that, the reservation for the persons belonging to the
Backward Class of citizens in a Zilla Parishad falling only partially in
the Scheduled Areas shall be as per the provisions of this clause:
Provided also that, one-half of the total number of seats so reserved
shall be reserved for women belonging to the category of Backward
Class of citizens;
(d) one-half (including the number of seats reserved for women
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the category
of Backward Class of citizens) of the total number of seats to be filled in
by direct election in a Zilla Parishad shall be reserved for women and
such seats shall be allotted by rotation to different electoral divisions in
a Zilla Parishad.
(3) The reservation of seats (other than the reservation for women) under
sub-section (2) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period,
specified in article 334 of the Constitution of India.”
17. The three steps involved in any election to the local body
comprise of (i) ward formation and reservation; (ii) finalization of
electoral rolls and (iii) actual election process which comprises of
nomination, publication of valid nomination, allotment of election
symbols, polling and declaration of results. Section 13 of the MZPPS
28
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
Act deals with the electoral roll of the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly prepared under the provisions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1950 (in short “RP Act”) and in force on such day as the
State Election Commission may by general or special order notify in
this behalf. Section 13 of the MZPPS Act reads as under :-
“13. List of Voters
(1) The electoral roll of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly excluding
the last part thereof as is referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 made under the Representation of
the People Act, 1950 prepared under the provisions of the
Representation of the People Act, 1950, and in force such day as the
State Election Commission may by general or special order notify in this
behalf for such part of the constituency of the Assembly as is included
in an electoral division, shall be the list of voters, for such electoral
division.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in any other law for the
time being in force, in respect of a presiding authority who by reason of
his office is provided with residential accommodation or house-rent in
lieu thereof by or under the provisions of this Act and who ceases to be
ordinarily resident during his term of office in any electoral divisions in
the District by reason of his absence therefrom in connection with his
duties as such authority, but is ordinarily resident in any place outside
the District of the Zilla Parishad in respect of which he is such authority
and in consequence whereof his name is not in the list of voters for any
electoral division in the District, then, in such case, the State Election
Commission shall amend the list of voters so as to enable such
presiding authority to be registered in the electoral division which but
for holding such office he would have been ordinarily resident. The
manner in which the list of voters shall be amended for the purposes
aforesaid and all matters supplementary, consequential and incidental
thereto shall be as are provided by rules made in this behalf.
(2) The office designated by the State Election Commissioner in this
behalf shall maintain a list of voters for each electoral division.”
18. The aforementioned statutory provisions provide a complete
regime for the preparation of electoral rolls and ward formation,
delimitation etc. In “Association of Democratic Reforms & Ors.”1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the expression “conduct of
election” is of wide amplitude and shall include powers to make all
1
Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reforms & Ors.: (2001) 10 SCC 211.
29
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
necessary provisions for conducting free and fair elections. The
conduct of all elections to the Panchayat is vested in a State Election
Commission under Article 243-K. The State Election Commission has
been vested with a power of superintendence, to issue direction and
control of the preparation of electoral rolls for elections in the
Panchayats. Section 9A of the MZPPS Act provides that the
superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the
electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections to the Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis shall vest in the State Election
Commission. The powers of the Election Commission are delineated in
“A.C. Jose”2 emphasizing that the Election Commission is free to pass
any orders in respect of the conduct of elections subject to express
statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder.
19. This is an accepted position that the demographic change in a
Panchayat area shall change the caste composition and population in
the constituencies in a Panchayat or Municipal area. Clause (2) of
Article 243-C provides that the Panchayat area shall be divided into
territorial constituencies and all seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by
persons chosen by direct election. It is necessary to keep in mind that
the seats allotted to a Panchayat shall have similar ratio of population
in each constituency throughout the Panchayat area as far as
practicable. Therefore, there is a need for delimitation of a Panchayat
area. Sub-section (3) to section 23 of the RP Act puts a complete
embargo to any amendment, transposition or of deletion of an entry of
a constituency after the last date for making nomination for an
election in a particular constituency is over. If the election is not held
on the basis of an electoral roll which is in force on the last date of
making nominations, then the postponement of an election shall be
2
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai & Ors.: (1984) 2 SCC 656.
30
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
the easiest thing just by filing any complaint or objection, omnibus or
otherwise. In “Lakshmi Charan Sen & Ors.”3, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that the elections cannot be postponed for the reason
that certain claims and objections have remained to be disposed of. In
“Mohinder Singh Gill”4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the
words “superintendence, direction and control” as well as “conduct of
all elections” are in the broadest terms and the directions issued by
the Election Commission can operate in the areas left unoccupied by
the legislation. In “Mohinder Singh Gill”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
“26. The heart of the matter is contained in the conclusions summarised
by the Court thus:
(1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures
have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to
be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early
as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and
all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the
elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly
retarded or protracted.
(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in
this country as well as in England is that no significance should be
attached to anything which does not affect the ‘election’; and, if any
irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the
category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed,
would have the effect of vitiating the ‘election’ and enable the person
affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special
tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a
dispute before any court while the election is in progress.”
After elaborately setting out the history in England and in India of election
legislation vis-a-vis dispute-resolution, Fazl Ali, J. stated:
“If the language used in Article 329(b) is considered against this
historical background, it should not be difficult to see why the
framers of the Constitution framed that provision in its present form
and chose the language which had been consistently used in
certain earlier legislative provisions and which had stood the test of
time.”
Likewise the Court discussed the connotation of the expression “election”
in Article 329 and observed:
3
Laxmi Charan Sen & Ors. v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman & Ors: (1985) 4 SCC 689.
4
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.: (1978) 1
SCC 405.
31
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
“That word has by long usage in connection with the process of selection or
proper representatives in domestic institutions, acquired both a wide and a
narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection
of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is
polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is
no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process
culminating in a candidate being declared elected …. it seems to me that
the word ‘election’ has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide
sense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone through to
return a candidate to the legislature ….. That the word “election” bears this
wide meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is
borne out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in
several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is,
when the election begins?”
The rainbow of operations, covered by the compendious expression
“election”, thus commences from the initial notification and culminates in
the declaration of the return of a candidate. The paramount policy of the
Constitution-framers in declaring that no election shall be called in
question except the way it is provided for in Article 329(b) and the
Representation of the People Act, 1951, compels us to read, as Fazl Ali, J.
did in Ponnuswami the Constitution and the Act together as an integral
scheme. The reason for postponement of election litigation to the post-
election stage is that elections shall not unduly be protracted or
obstructed. The speed and promptitude in getting due representation for
the electors in the legislative bodies is the real reason suggested in the
course of judgment.”
20. The State-respondents have contended that the physical
changes in the areas and boundaries of the villages on account of
delimitation of village area necessitated ward formation for every
election. In “Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti” 5, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that it is for the government to decide in what manner the
Panchayat areas and constituencies in each Panchayat area shall be
delimited and it is not for the Court to dictate the manner in which
the same would be done. Even if no elections are contemplated in
immediate future, the revision of electoral roll continues. It is a
continuous process which is undertaken for each constituency as per
sub-section (1) of section 21 of the RP Act and it is prepared in the
prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date. Proviso to sub-
section (2) says that if the electoral roll is not revised as aforesaid, its
5
State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Ors.: 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 305.
32
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:22 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
validity and continued operation is not affected. Sub-section (3) to
section 21 of the RP Act which confers upon the Election Commission
the power to direct special revision of the electoral roll lays down
under its proviso that until completion of the special revision, the
electoral roll for the time being in force shall be continued to be in
force.
21. The writ petitions in this batch are without a factual foundation.
There are vague suggestions and allegations against the respondent-
authority of acting contrary to law. There is hardly any scope for the
writ Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to intervene and correct the electoral rolls.
There is an express bar imposed by Article 243-O of the Constitution
of India to question the delimitation of wards in a Court of law. It is
provided thereunder that (i) the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of constituencies or (ii) the allotment of seats to such
constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K
shall not be called in question in any Court. Sub-clause (b) of Article
243-K puts a further bar to call in question the election to any
Panchayat except by an election petition presented to such authority
and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by
the Legislature of a State. There is a safeguard, such as a remedy by
way of an appeal provided to a person aggrieved by inclusion, deletion
or correction in his name in the electoral roll which checks the abuse
or misuse of power. The learned counsel for the respondents rightly
contended that every election may be indefinitely delayed if the Court
intervenes in the matter and issues directions to the authorities who
are acting as per the statutory provisions and constitutional mandate.
22. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed.
33
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
In re: Reservation Rules:
WP No.11880 of 2025 WP No.15121 of 2025 WP No.12935 of 2025
WP (ST) No.34566 of WP No.15299 of 2025 WP No.14728 of 2025
2025
WP No.14753 of 2025 WP No.14767 of 2025 WP No.14809 of 2025
WP No.14828 of 2025 WP No.14848 of 2025 WP No.14881 of 2025
WP No.14892 of 2025 WP No.14981 of 2025 WP No.14966 of 2025
WP No.14967 of 2025 WP No.15017 of 2025 WP No.15018 of 2025
WP No.15026 of 2025 WP No.15125 of 2025 WP No.15741 of 2025
WP No.15743 of 2025 WP No.15745 of 2025 WP No.15807 of 2025
WP No.16174 of 2025
23. In these writ petitions, a challenge has been laid to Rule XII of
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and
Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 2025 (in short, Rotation of
Reservation Rules, 2025).
24. Rule XII of the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 is extracted
below:
“XII. First election for rotation:- For the purposes of rotation of seats
under these rules, the general election held after commencement of these
rules shall be considered as the first election.”
25. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11880 of 2025 is a farmer by
occupation and resident of Kasar-Amboli within Taluka Mulshi in the
district of Pune. He states that he is an eligible voter for the
forthcoming Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Elections of 2025.
He seeks to challenge the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 and, in
particular, Rule XII thereof on the ground that the Rotation of
Reservation Rules are inconsistent with Part-IX of the Constitution of
India and the provisions of the MZPPS Act. The learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that the introduction of Rule XII of the
Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 to declare the forthcoming
elections as the first election has arbitrarily disrupted the ongoing
34
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
cycle. It is submitted that Article 243-A of the Constitution of India
which pertains to Gram Sabha ensures continuity and stability of
tenure and proper functioning of the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat
Samitis. Emphasizing the importance of representation in reserved
seats, it is contended that the constitutional provisions must prevail
over the statutory rules in case of any repugnancy. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole object is to
prevent favoritism and ensure periodic opportunity to under-
represented groups across all the electoral wards and divisions but
the purpose is frustrated by the introduction of Rule XII of the
Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 which will perpetuate inequalities
and hinder social justice.
26. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.11880 of 2025 has made the
following prayers:-
“a. Declare the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis
(Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 2025, particularly
Rule XII thereof, as ultra vires the Constitution of India, specifically
Articles 243D, 243E, and 243K, and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, to the extent that they designate the
forthcoming general election as the “first election” for the purpose of
rotation of reserved seats, and consequently strike down the said Rule
as unconstitutional and void.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction, directing Respondent No. 1 (State of Maharashtra) and
Respondent No. 2 (State Election Commission) to ensure that the
reservation and rotation of seats for the forthcoming 2025 elections to the
Zilla Parishad, Pune, and associated Panchayat Samitis are conducted in
accordance with the constitutional mandate under Article 243D and the
statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat
Samitis Act, 1961, maintaining continuity with the rotation cycle
established since the 1996 elections.
c. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction, quashing the impugned Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules,
2025, to the extent they are inconsistent with the constitutional and
statutory framework, particularly with respect to the arbitrary resetting
of the rotation cycle.
d. Direct Respondents to implement the reservation and rotation of seats
for the 2025 elections based on the population figures of the National
Census of 2011 and in consonance with the established rotational cycle35
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docas per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner
and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996, ensuring equitable
representation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, women, and
other reserved categories across all electoral divisions.
e. Grant an interim stay on the operation and implementation of the
impugned Rules, particularly Rule XII, pending the final disposal of this
Petition, to prevent irreparable harm to the democratic process and the
rights of the Petitioners and other stakeholders in the forthcoming 2025
elections.
f. Pass any other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest
of justice, equity, and good conscience.”
WRIT PETITION NO.14828 OF 2025
27. The petitioners in this writ petition belong to the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe. They say that they intend to contest the
forthcoming Zilla Parishad elections. According to them, reservation of
seats was provided in several constituencies as per the Rules of 1996
in the previous elections held in the years 2002, 2007, 2012 and
2017. The petitioners say that grave injustice would be caused to
them and other similarly situated eligible voters of their communities
if the forthcoming elections in 2025 are treated as the first election
and thereby some of the constituencies which were covered under the
previous rotation system will be reserved again. The petitioners refer
to order passed by this Court in “Prashant Bansilal Bamb”6 to fortify
their stand that the rules of rotation should be followed scrupulously.
According to the petitioners, in the previous four elections several
electoral divisions in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar such as Sillegaon
and Turkabad were never reserved for the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners refer to the decision in “K.
Krishnamurthy (Dr.) & Ors.”7 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the rule of rotation is a mandatory safeguard. It ensures equality
of opportunity in political representation and prevents the same
6
Prashant Bansilal Bamb v. State of Maharashtra: 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 112.
7
K. Krishnamurthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr: (2010) 7 SCC 202.
36
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
constituencies from being reserved in perpetuity. In this writ petition,
the petitioners have made the following prayers:-
“A. The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby quashing and setting
aside Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis
(Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 2025, as being
unconstitutional, ultra vires and arbitrary (Annexure ‘A’).
B. The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby declare that the
General Election of 2025 to the Zilla Parishads in the State of
Maharashtra shall be treated as in continuation of the rotation cycle
commenced under the 1996 Rules, and not as the “first election.”
C. The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby direct the respondents
to apply the principle of rotation strictly in accordance with Article 243-D
of the Constitution of India and Section 42 of the Act of 1961, and to
conduct the elections on the basis of the settled policy of rotation.
D. Pending the hearing and till final disposal of this Writ Petition, this
Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to stay the execution, operation,
implementation and effect of Rule 12 of the 2025 Rules and direct the
respondents to provide reservation on the basis of the policy of rotation,
and thereafter to declare and proceed with the further election process.
E. Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly be granted in
favour of the petitioners.”
WRIT PETITION NO.14892 OF 2025
28. The petitioner is a resident of Azad Nagar, Tardal, Taluka
Hatkanangle in the district of Kolhapur. He does not belong to any
reserved category and is aggrieved by Rule XII of the Rotation of
Reservation Rules, 2025 apprehending that in the forthcoming
elections for the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, Hatkanangle
taluka may be reserved for the Scheduled Castes category. According
to the petitioner, the Zilla Parishad wards in Hatkanangle taluka were
earmarked for the Scheduled Castes in the earlier elections and in the
forthcoming elections a candidate from open category may not again
get a chance if forthcoming election is considered as the first election
for the purposes of Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025. The
petitioner states that the rotation of reservation for seats should start
from 2002.
37
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
29. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that Rule XII which provides that the forthcoming elections
shall be the first election is contrary to the object and scheme under
the rules for reservation. The purpose of rotation of seats for
reservation is to provide equal and periodic opportunities to every
electoral ward and division across categories of reservation. The
Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 which superseded the Rotation of
Reservation Rules, 1996 are similar in intent and structure but the
introduction of Rule XII thereunder has changed the entire statutory
regime. The learned counsel challenged the validity of Rule XII of the
Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 on the ground that the said Rule
has no force of law inasmuch as the Rules were not published in the
Official Gazette and the Government of Maharashtra has failed to
disclose sufficient reason for making previous publication of the Rules
as a special situation. Moreover, the Rules have been published
without following the procedure under section 274 of the MZPPS Act.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos. 13371 of 2025 and 13007 of 2025 referred to the
decision in “Hindustan Bulk Carriers”8 and “Sultana Begum”9. He
submitted that the order dated 16 th September 2025 passed in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19756 of 2021 shall not constitute res
judicata to entertain the present batch of writ petitions challenging
the validity of Rule XII of the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025.
30. Mr. D. P. Palodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in
Writ Petition Nos. 14828 of 2025, 14881 of 2025 and Writ Petition
(St.) No. 34566 of 2025 submitted that Rule IV of the Rotation of
Reservation Rules, 2025 was introduced to effectuate the mandate
under Article 243-D of the Constitution of India, which envisages
8
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers: (2003) 3 SCC 57.
9
Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain: (1997) 1 SCC 373.
38
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
rotation of seats for reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe,
Other Backward Class and women. He relied on the decision in
“Sanjay Ramdas Patil”10 and endeavored to demonstrate that a
particular electoral division may again be reserved for any particular
class or category and the reservation for electoral division or divisions
in descending order as per the population may again go backward.
The learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions
submitted that a careful reading of the orders dated 16 th September
2025 and 17th October 2025 shall disclose that the Special Leave
Petition was disposed of keeping the doors open for remedial
measures for the aggrieved parties.
31. The guidelines for conduct of local body elections in the State of
Maharashtra were published by the State Election Commission vide
Government Resolution dated 12th June 2025. Soon thereafter, the
Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 were published on 22 nd August
2025. Writ Petition No. 5062 of 2025 filed at Nagpur Bench
challenging Rule XII of the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 was
dismissed on 19th September 2025. On 13th October 2025, the State
Election Commission declared the reservation in electoral
divisions/wards. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14892 of 2025
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of
2025 challenging Rule XII of the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025
which was dismissed on 17 th October 2025. It is stated that the
elections in the past for the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis
were conducted pursuant to the Notification dated 30 th October 1996
and the rotation of reserved seats was followed in the electoral
divisions as per the Rotation of Reservation Rules of 1996. It is stated
that the rotation of reserved seats as per Rule IV of the Rules of 1996
10
Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay & Ors.: (2021) 10 SCC 306.
39
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
was applied in the elections conducted in the 2007, 2012 and 2017.
Later on, the State Election Commission declared the reserved seats
in the electoral division but, according to the petitioners, the mandate
under Rule IV has not been followed. Vishal Hanmant Aglave, who is
the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14892 of 2025 approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.1006 of 2025 and the
said writ petition has been disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme by an
order dated 17th October 2025.
32. The common ground taken by the State-respondent is that a
similar challenge made to Rule XII of the Rotation of Reservation
Rules, 2025 in Writ Petition No. 10237 of 2025 at Aurangabad Bench
and Writ Petition No. 5062 of 2025 at Nagpur Bench has failed and
those orders have attained finality after the Special Leave Petition was
dismissed on 16th September 2025. Writ Petition No.5062 of 2025 was
dismissed on the ground that the writ petition was based on
hypothetical situation and no material was produced by the
petitioners before the Court to sustain the challenge laid to Rule XII of
the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025. In the said order, this Court
referred to the decision in “Kishorchandra Chhaganlal Rathod”11. The
State-respondent have set up a plea of res-judicata on the ground that
Writ Petition No.5061 of 2025 with connected matters was dismissed
by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench and the said order has
been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No(s).27739 of 2025. The challenge laid to Rule XII in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).27739 of 2025 came to be disposed of in the
following terms :-
ORDER
“1. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well
as Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, representing the
11
Kishorchandra Chhaganlal Rathod v. Union of India & Ors.: 2024 SCC OnLine 1879.
40
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
State of Maharashtra.
2. As of now, it seems to us that Rule XII of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation
of Seats) Rules, 2025, which is under challenge, does not warrant any
interference, so long as the competent Authority provides the prescribed
reservation following the mandate contained in Rule 4 of the Madhya
Pradesh Municipalities (Reservation of Wards for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Women) Rules, 1994.
However, in the event of any anomaly that might emerge as a result of
the ensuing elections, the appropriate remedial steps may be taken. The
petitioner or other aggrieved persons will be at liberty to approach the
appropriate forum for appropriate remedial measures.
3. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with liberty aforesaid.
4. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
33. According to the State-respondent, the petitioners were
attempting to indirectly interfere with the elections for the Panchayats
and Municipalities. They have no vested right to contest the
forthcoming elections on a reserved seat. The purported loss of
opportunity to them does not provide a ground to maintain the writ
petition. The rules have been framed in exercise of powers under
clause (ii) and clause (xiii) of sub-section (2) and proviso to sub-rule
(3) of section 274 of the MZPPS Act. It was on account of the
significant change in the territorial and physical limits of the rural
areas and the changes in the number of electoral divisions and
electoral colleges that the rules were framed by the State government,
pursuant to the delimitation exercise. It is stated that there has been
a considerable delay in holding elections for the local bodies in the
State of Maharashtra and such delays were primarily on account of
multiple pending challenges to the statutory amendments to the local
body laws and there is a direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
the State Election Commission and the State Government to conclude
the elections for the local bodies within a time-frame. The
respondents have also questioned the motive behind filing of the writ
41
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
petitions and state that the petitioners with oblique motive are
seeking interference of this Court in the electoral matters to stall the
election processes which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that
the petitioners have no locus-standi to maintain a challenge to Rule
XII of the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 on the ground of a
purported loss of opportunity. Rule XIV of the Rotation of Reservation
Rules, 2025 has been introduced to give proper opportunity to the
weaker sections of the society to avail the benefit of reservation in all
constituencies in the State.
34. The Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 have been framed by
the State government in exercise of the powers under clauses (ii) and
(xiii) of sub-section (2) and proviso to sub-section (3) of section 274 of
the MZPPS Act. Section 274 under Chapter XVII of the MZPPS Act is
the rule making power of the State government for the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. Proviso to sub-section
(3) of section 274 of the MZPPS Act gives liberty to the State
government to dispense with the requirement of previous publication
of the Rules. It provides that if the State government is satisfied that
the circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate
action, it may dispense with the requirement of previous publication
of the Rules to be made for the purposes of conduct of election under
this Act. We do not find any malafide in enacting the Rotation of
Reservation Rules, 2025. The Rotation of Reservation Rules, 1996
were framed in supersession of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Manner of Reservation of
Seats) Rules, 1985, the Maharashtra Panchayat Samitis Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Manner of Reservation of Seats) Rules,
1985 and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis
(Manner of Rotation of Reservation of Seats for Women) Rules, 1990.
42
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
The present rules have been framed and published in supersession of
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and
Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996. These rules provide for
rotation of reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, Backward class of citizens and women in electoral divisions of
the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis in the State of
Maharashtra.
35. The Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 provide under Rule III
that the number of seats to be reserved for the persons belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of citizens
and women as provided under Section 12(2) of the MZPPS Act shall be
determined by the State Election Commission out of the total number
of seats to be filled in by election for every general election to a Zilla
Parishad. Under Rule IV, the manner of allotment and rotation of
seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has
been laid down. It provides for the allotment of the seats reserved for
the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
to the electoral divisions in the descending order. The number of total
seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as determined
under Rule 3 shall be allotted to the electoral divisions in a manner
that the electoral division having highest population of such castes or,
as the case may be, tribes shall be reserved first. Rule IV
contemplates situation where the population of the Scheduled Castes
or, as the case may be, Scheduled Tribes is equal in different electoral
divisions. This also visualizes a situation where the population of both
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is equal in a particular
electoral division then in such eventualities, first proviso to Rule IV
provides that the allotment of seats in respect of such electoral
divisions or electoral division shall be by drawing of lots.
43
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
36. Second proviso to Rule IV deals with a peculiar situation where
the population of the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the
Scheduled Tribes in an electoral division is such that both the
categories are entitled to have that electoral division reserved for each
of them. Second proviso is intended to resolve this situation by
providing that the electoral division where this peculiar situation
arises shall be reserved for such caste category which has the highest
population. A seat shall be reserved for the remaining caste category
(the second category) in the electoral division where it has the next
highest population in the descending order. Sub Rule (2) to Rule IV
provides that the seats reserved for the persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be rotated in the
subsequent general elections to the electoral divisions in which no
seat was reserved in the previous general elections for such castes or,
as the case may be, tribes, until such reservation is given, by rotation
to different electoral divisions in a district.
37. The Rules III and IV read as under :-
“III. State Election Commission to determine the number of seats to be
reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of
Citizens and Women:- For every general election to a Zilla Parishad, the
State Election Commission shall determine, out of the total number of
seats to be filled in by election, the number of seats to be reserved for
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward
Class of Citizens and Women as provided in sub-section (2) of section 12
of the Act.
Explanation. – While determining the number of seats, the fraction
of one-half or more of a seat shall be counted as one and the fraction of
less than one-half shall be ignored.
IV. Manner of allotment and rotation of seats reserved for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:- (1) The number of seats
reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes under rule 3 shall be allotted to the electoral divisions in the
descending order beginning with the electoral division where population of
such Castes or, as the case may be, Tribes is the highest:
Provided that, where in different electoral divisions the population
44
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.docof Scheduled Castes, or as the case may be, Scheduled Tribes is equal, or
in an electoral division where the population of both the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes is equal, then the allotment of seats in respect of
such electoral divisions or electoral division shall be by drawing of lots:
Provided further that, where the population of the Scheduled
Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes in an electoral
division is such that both the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are
entitled to have that electoral division reserved for each of them, then such
electoral division shall be reserved for such category of them having higher
population, and in the process for the other remaining category the
electoral division in which it has the next highest population in the
descending order, the seat shall be reserved.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in ‘sub-rule (1) seats
reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
shall be rotated in the subsequent general elections to the electoral
divisions in which no seats have, in the previous general elections been
reserved for such Castes or, as the case may be, Tribes, until such
reservation is given, by rotation to different electoral divisions in a
district.”
38. The whole thrust of the argument made by the learned counsels
for the petitioners was that the seats reserved under Rule III must be
allotted to the electoral division with next highest population in the
subsequent general elections and no seat can be allotted to the
electoral division which had availed of the benefit of reservation in the
previous general elections. The submission is that the allotment of
seats for the reserved category to the electoral division must be made
in descending order of population by rotation to different electoral
divisions in a district and the rotation of seats cannot be stopped
midway till it completes full circle. Reliance has been placed on the
decision in “Kalabai Pramod Raut”12 wherein the Division Bench of
this Court observed that there would be increase in the number of
seats because of the increase in the population and reservation is
likely to overlap resulting in repetition of reservation in respect of
some posts. However, while doing so, the authorities should apply
12
Kalabai Pramod Raut v. Selection Committee, Anganwadi Sewika and Helper, Lakhandur & Ors.: (2007)
SCC OnLine Bom 403.
45
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
their mind and ensure that the rule regarding rotation of reservation
is followed both in letter and spirit. This Court further observed that it
is found inevitable that on account of increase in the population and
increase in the number of electoral divisions, reservation is likely to
be repeated in respect of some electoral divisions and the respondents
ought to exercise proper care to see as far as possible the reservation
is not repeated.
39. In “Sanjay Ramdas Patil” the office of the Mayor, Dhule
Municipal Corporation for the term commencing from June 2021 was
reserved for the Backward Class category. In that case, the decision of
the High Court that the post of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation
was required to be reserved for Scheduled Castes. The Bombay High
Court referred to a decision of Karnataka High Court in “M. Abdul
Azeez13” which held that the principle of rotation shall be violated
where a seat earmarked for a reservation category is allotted for a
second time before completion of the cycle of rotation. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court did not approve the decision of the Bombay High
Court and held that interpretation of the Rules by the High Court
would make the Rules unworkable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that the Rules are mechanism for giving effect to the
constitutional mandate providing reservation for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the Court to construe
the statute as a whole and that one provision of the Act has to be
construed with reference to the other provisions so as to make a
consistent enactment of a whole statute. Undoubtedly, rules have
been framed to give effect to the constitutional mandate. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court repelled the contention that until reservation is
provided for each category by rotation, the same reservation cannot
13
M. Abdul Azeez v. State of Karnataka : 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 537
46
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
be provided to a category for which it was already reserved.
40. The Constitution of India makes a classification of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in different provisions and
gives a mandate to the State to accord special treatment to them. A
rule in favor of the underrepresented community provides the equality
of opportunity. The obligation of the government under the
Constitution is a measure of affirmative action to promote equality.
Rousseau once said; “It is precisely because of force of circumstances
tends to destroy equality with force of legislation must always tend to
maintain it”. The concept of equality of opportunity percolates to the
governance of local self-government and provides an opportunity to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to get their share of
representation in Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities. The
Constitution of India has played a great role in transforming the
hierarchical society into a modern egalitarian democracy. The
provisions of the Constitution can be understood by adopting a
pragmatic approach and in the context of the society as a whole.
Section 58 of the MZPPS Act contains a provision for reservation of
seats for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, Backward Class of citizen and women. There are similar
stipulations under different proviso in section 58 as regards the
number of seats to be reserved for particular caste or category.
41. There was a time when right to contest an election was
considered neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is
now a settled law that the right to contest election is a constitutional
right. By the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, Part IX was
introduced in the Constitution to provide a framework for the
Panchayats so as to ensure participation of the people in the
democratic processes at the grass root level. Article 243-D provides
47
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
that in every Panchayat there shall be reservation in seats for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of seats so
reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall be in
the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct
election as the population of the Scheduled Castes is in that
Panchayat area. It further provides that such seats may be allotted by
rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. In so far the
mandate for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and the number of seats so reserved for them is concerned,
Article 243-D employs the expression “shall”. However, for allotment
of seats by rotation to different constituencies, Article 243-D says that
such seats “may be” allotted by rotation to different constituencies in
a Panchayat. Quite apparently, the object behind Article 243-D of the
Constitution of India is to provide reservation for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the women in Panchayat elections.
The reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Backward Class of Citizens and the women in the Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis is in consonance with the provisions under Article
243-D and Article 243-K of the Constitution and the provisions of the
MZPPS Act. The use of the expression “may be” contemplates a
situation where the reservation and allotment of seats for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of Citizens
and the women in the elections for Zilla Parishads or Panchayat
Samitis may overlap even while following the rotation system to
different constituencies. Sub Rule (2) to Rule IV which starts with a
non-obstante clause provides that the reservation of seats for the
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
shall be made to the electoral divisions in which no seat was reserved
in the previous general elections until such reservation is given, by
48
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
rotation to different electoral divisions in a district. However, first
proviso to sub-section (1) which provides for allotment of seats by
drawing of lots may bring in a situation where the same electoral
division gets the allotment of reserved seats in the subsequent general
election. Under Rule V, the allotment of seats reserved for Backward
Class of Citizens is made by drawing of lots but under sub Rule (2) it
is clarified that the allotment of reserved seat in the subsequent
general elections shall be made by drawing of lots and by excluding
electoral divisions where the seats were reserved for Backward Class
of Citizens in the previous general elections. There is no such
provision made in Rule IV of the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025.
Besides these nitty-gritties, what is necessary to keep in mind while
examining the Constitutional validity of Rule XII is whether the
mandate under Article 243-D of the Constitution of India has been
followed or violated.
42. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsel further submitted
that while harmonizing the provisions under Rules IV and XII, it must
be kept in mind that Rule IV cannot be rendered a dead letter or
lumber. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsel contended that the
provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the
other provisions unless the Court, in spite of its efforts, finds it
impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
43. The essence of rule of harmonious construction is that the two
conflicting provisions in a statute should be so interpreted to give
effect to both of them even where it seems difficult to reconcile both
the provisions. The Latin maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat
envisages that a liberal construction should be put upon written
instruments so as to uphold them and carry into effect the intention
of the parties has been the governing principle to make a statute
49
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
workable and to secure the object thereunder unless it is found
unattainable. In “Sanjay Ramdas Patil”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that in a situation where there appears to be conflicting
provisions in a statute, it is the duty of the Court to first make
endeavors to harmonize both provisions. However, the Court may
strike down a provision provided it finds that the other provision in
the statute is wholly inconsistent with and both the provisions are so
irreconcilable that there is no other option for the Court but to strike
down the provision which is in conflict with the object behind the
statute. In “Salmon”14, it was observed that the Courts should reject
that construction which defeats the plain intention of the Legislature
even though there may be some inexactitude in the language. Lord
Davey in “Canada Sugar Refining Co. Ltd.”15 observed that every
clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context
and other clauses of the statute so, as far as possible, to make a
consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes
relating to the subject matter. In “Sultana Begum”, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the Courts to avoid the
head-on clash between two sections of the statute and to construe the
provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a
manner as to harmonize them.
44. There is no provision for reservation of seats ward-wise. All
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are regarded
as belonging to one class. The Constitution provides for reservation of
seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Such a
provision identifies the intended beneficiaries who in the present case
are the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These traditionally
marginalized groups are provided a foothold in the local self-
14
Salmon v. Duncombe: (1886) 11 AC 627.
15
Canada Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. R: [1978] A.C. 735.
50
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
government and it is in this context that rule IV has to be understood.
The emphasis in the different provisions under the Constitution is on
providing equality of opportunity and participation in the democratic
processes. In “Prashant Bansilal Bamb”, the Division Bench of this
Court held that the policy of rotation is not in conflict with the
constitutional mandate. This Court held that the State Election
Commission shall in exercise of its powers conferred by Article 243-K
of the Constitution of India take effective and meaningful steps in
implementing the spirit of constitutional and legal provisions
regarding the rotation policy for reservation of seats in the Panchayat
elections. In our opinion, the reservation of seats for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in every election for the Zilla Parishads
and Panchayat Samitis is to the benefit of the entire community and
not to benefit an individual. The Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025
is a piece of subordinate legislation. There is no challenge to these
Rules on the ground of competence of the State Legislature to frame
the rules. There is also no challenge to these Rules on the ground that
the Rules confer unguided, uncanalized or unchallenged powers on
the State Election Commission to decide the seats to be reserved for
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of citizens
and women in the electoral divisions in the Zilla Parishads and
Electoral Colleges of the Panchayat Samitis.
45. In the aforementioned background, it is established with an
ample measure that the challenge made by the petitioners to Rule XII
of the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025 has no foundation in law.
Holding of elections for the Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis etc. is
necessary for effectuating the objective of self-governance. The
individual’s right to franchise and right to contest the elections are
not unfettered rights and are regulated under the statutory
provisions.
51
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
46. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in these
writ petitions which are therefore dismissed.
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 52 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:23 ::: WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc APPENDIX-I
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Kashish Chelani,
Mr. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, Mr.
Rahul Singh, Mr. Neil Patel, Mr. Atharva Date, Ms. Pranali
Raut, Ms. Varsha Sawant, Ms. Kashish Chelani i/b. Legal
Catalyst, Advocates for Petitioner in WP/13518/2025.
Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley a/w Mr. Hitesh B. Sangle, Advocates
for the Petitioner in WP/15782/2025 (Through V.C.).
Mr. Nitin Vyawahare a/w. Mr. Vedant Vyawahare, Advocates
for Petitioner in WP/15798/2025.
Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w. Mr. Shyamsundar Patil, Mr. Pravin
Nikam, Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/14420/2025.
Mr. Hitesh Sangle a/w. Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Advocates for
Petitioner in WP/15782/2025.
Mr. Nitin Vyawahare a/w. Mr. Vedant Vyawahare, Advocates
for Petitioners in WP/15798/2025.
Mr.Nikhil Sakhardande, Sr.Adv. a/w Ms. Shubhra Swami &
Mr. Priyansh R. Jain i/b. Mr. Shraddhanand Bhutada,
Advocates for Petitioner in WP/15778/2025.
Mr. Tauseef Sayyed (Through V.C.), Advocate for the Petitioner
in WP/14855/2025.
Mr. Shrishailya S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner in
WP/11930/2025.
Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi i/b. Mr. Sharad Natu, Advocates for
Petitioner in WP/14820/2025, WP/14821/2025.
Mr. Ratan L. Adhe i/b. Mr. Datta Madake, Advocates for
Petitioner in WP/14728/2025.
Mr. Ratan L. Adhe i/b. Mr. Vishal A. Bagul Patil, Advocates for
Petitioner in WP/15026/2025.
Smt. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Jagruti
Nimbalkar, Advocates for Petitioner in WP/11878/2025.
Smt. Jagruti Nimbalkar, Advocate for Petitioner in
WP/11880/2025.
Mr. S. B. Gastgor, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/15127/2025.
Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak, (Through V.C.) Advocate for
Respondent No.2-Municipal Council Gondia in
WP/15782/2025, for Respondent No.5-Municipal Council
53
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc
Gondia in WP/15780/2025, for Respondent No.2-Chief Officer
Wani Nagar Parishad in WP/15798/2025 & for Respondent
No.5 in WP/15018/2025.
Mr. Rakesh R. Bhatkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad in WP/15806/2025 a/w.
IA/13412/2025.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Chaitrali
Deshmukh, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 & 3 in
WP/14420/2025.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, G.P. a/w. Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl
G.P., Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP, Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP,
Mrs. Pooja Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Respondent No.5-
Municipal Council Wadi in WP/15018/2025.
Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in
WP/15015/2025.
Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye a/w. Akshay Pansare, Mr.Nipun
Sawane, Adv for Respondent – State Election Commission – in
all connected matters.
Mr. Sandeep Koregave, Advocate (Through V.C.) for Petitioner
in WP/14966/2025, WP/14967/2025, WP/14892/2025.
Mr. D. P. Palodkar a/w. Mr. Nikhil Adkine, Mr. Shubham
Khoche, Mr. Avinash Badmare, Advocates for Petitioner in
WPST/34566/2025.
Mr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Mr. Sandeep Kovaradregave & Mr.
Amol Sawant, Advocates for Petitioner in WP/13007/2025.
Mr. Vijay P. Agale a/w. Mr. Mehboob Shaikh, Advocates for
Petitioner in WP/14981/2025.
Mr. Ratan Adhe i/b. Mr. Dutta Madake, Advocates for the
Petitioner in WP/14728/2025.
Mr. Ratan Adhe i/b. Mr. Vishal A. Bagul Patil, Advocates for
Petitioner in WP/15026/2025.
Mr. S. S. Patwardhan i/b. Ms. Mrinal Shelar, Advocates for
Petitioners in WP/12935/2025.
Mr. Anurag Mankar a/w. Mr. Raj Tavsalkar, Advocates for
Petitioner in WP/15003/2025.
Mr. Shrishailya S. Deshmukh, Advocates for Petitioner in
WP/11930/2025.
54 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 21:51:23 ::: WP-11878-25 & group matters.doc Mr. Ajinkya Gaikwad, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/15412/2025.
Mr. Rashid Khan a/w Mr. Saurav More, Advocates for the
Petitioner in WP/15299/2025.
Mr. Subodh Shah (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Nikhil Adkine,
Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/14848/2025.
Mr.Vinayak Dahihande, Advocate for the Petitioner in
WP/14809/2025.
Mr. Devdatta P. Palodkar (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Shubham B.
Choudhari, Mr. Nikhil Adkine, Mr. Avinash Bailmare,
Advocates for the Petitioner in WP Nos.14828/2025,
14881/2025 & WPST/34566/2025.
Mr. Pradeep Salgar (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Ritesh Thobde &
Ms. Zubi Ansari, Advocates for the Petitioner in
WP/15808/2025.
Mr. Anil Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jagdish G.
Aradwad (Reddy), Advocate for Respondent No.1 – TMC in
WP/13518/2025.
Mr. P. S. Dani, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Sarang S. Aradhya &
Ms. Gauri Velankar, Advocates for the Respondent No.4 –
Panvel Municipal Corporation in WP/15299/2025.
55
::: Uploaded on – 14/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 20/02/2026 21:51:23 :::
