505 wp 11399-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11399 OF 2025 Sanjay Sambhaji Sawant and Others. ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude (thr. V.C.) i/b Aditya Raktade and Aarti Shah for the Petitioner. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. Sandip r. Patil for the Respondent No. 2. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Date : September 30, 2025. P. C. : 1. Not on board. Taken on board. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that delimitation program published by the Chief Oicer, Ajara Nagar Panchayat vide notiication dated 24th June 2025 is bad in law as only 4 days time from 18th August 2025 to 21st August 2025, is given for raising objections against the delimitation which is contrary to the provisions of proviso to Sub-Section (1A) of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. It is the submission of learned Counsel that the proviso clearly stipulates that period for submitting Patil-SR 1 of 3 505 wp 11399-25.doc and entertaining objections is “within 7 days” from the date of publication of notice in the newspaper, and grant of 4 days period runs foul of the aforesaid provision. It is further submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Collector has no power to delegate in the light of the order dated 10th June 2025 more particularly Clause (2) thereunder. It is submitted that election program clearly mentions that one of the function in Item-5, that is the publication of the draft ward formation is to be done by the Chief Oicer of the concerned Nagar Panchayat. 3. Learned AGP submitted that Clause 3 of the said order provides that it is Chief Oicer of the Municipal Council who is empowered to entertain the objections regarding the draft ward formation. 4. We do not ind any merit in this petition. In any event in view of the bar to the interference by courts in electoral matters under Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, which clearly stipulates that validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purported to be made under Article 243ZF shall not be called in question in any Court and no election to any municipality shall be called in question 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, we decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Patil-SR 2 of 3 505 wp 11399-25.doc 5. In support of his submission that the delegation of powers by the Collector is illegal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Nandkishore Mohanlal Lahoti v. State of Maharashtra1. However, the said decision is distinguishable on facts as in the present case speciic power is conferred on the Chief Oicer of Nagar Panchayat to hear the objections. 6. Writ Petition is dismissed. 7. It is open for the Petitioner to ile an election petition after the elections are over. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.] 1 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 552. Patil-SR 3 of 3