1 910-CA-9082-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9082 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9083 OF 2026 IN WP/5656/2026 JAYSHREE NITIN GIDHANE VERSUS VIJAY EKNATH NARWADE AND OTHERS ... Mr. Yuvraj V. Kakde, Advocate for Applicant Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State Ms. V. P. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : Civil Application No. 9082 Of 2026:- 1. By this application, the applicant seeks vacating and/or modification of the interim order dated 21/07/2026 passed in Writ Petition No.5656/2026. It is her contention that before passing of the said order charge was taken over by her on 05/06/2026. She further submits that her appointment is in accordance with the orders of this Court. 2. Heard learned advocate for applicant, learned advocate for respondent No.1 - original petitioner, learned advocate for Zilla Parishad and learned AGP for State. SVH 2026:BHC-AUG:38506-DB 2 910-CA-9082-26.odt 3. Learned AGP submits that praecipe of all such petitions wherein similar challenge is raised is moved before the Acting Chief Justice for clubbing of all the matters and order is awaited on the same. 4. Learned advocate for respondent No.1 – original petitioner submits that appointment of applicant as Administrator is contrary to the letter and spirit of the order dated 26/03/2026 passed by this Court [Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.] in Writ Petition No.3032 of 2026 and connected matters. 5. With the assistance of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we have perused the interim order and documents placed on record. We find merit in the contention of the original petitioner that appointment of applicant as Administrator is contrary to the letter and spirit of the order dated 26/03/2026. 6. Learned advocate for applicant has relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the order dated 20/05/2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. ___ of 2026] [Diary No(s).27798 of 2026], which reads thus, “5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents and having considered the matter in detail, we deem it appropriate to modify the order impugned before us, by directing appointment of Administrator for the Chhtrapati Sambhaji Nagar District and issue necessary Notification. The Administrator so appointed shall abide by the directions issued by the High Court in the order impugned before us. SVH 3 910-CA-9082-26.odt 6. It is made clear that except the above modification, the order passed by the High Court shall remain unaltered.” According to him, his appointment as Administrator is in consonance with the said directions. We are unable to agree with the said submission. 7. This Court in clear terms has observed in the order dated 26/03/2026 that, “35. On an overall consideration of the statutory scheme, the constitutional provisions and the case law discussed above, we are prima facie not satisfied that the State Government has the authority or power to issue the impugned Government Resolution appointing ex-Sarpanchs as Administrators and constituting administrative committees of ex-members of Gram Panchayats whose five-year tenure had already expired. The source of power relied upon by the State on Section 151 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, and in particular the proviso does not, at least at this stage, appear to justify the arrangement created by the impugned Government Resolution. The power to appoint ‘a suitable person as the administrator’ does not extend to the appointment of ex-Sarpanch as Administrator or constitution of an administrative committee of former elected representatives. Executive action cannot fill the gap between what the Legislature expressly permitted and what the State Government has done.“ . . . ORDER (a) ... (b) … (c) In all districts where, as on 27th February 2026, no orders pursuant to the impugned Government Resolution had been issued or no charge had been taken by any Administrator or administrative committee, no further steps shall be taken pursuant to the said Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2026 until further orders of this Court.” 8. In our view, appointment of applicant is contrary to the direction given by this Court in clause ‘(c)’ of the above operative order. SVH 4 910-CA-9082-26.odt 9. It is brought to our notice that though the charge was given to applicant, the same is now withdrawn under the orders of Chief Executive Officer. Be that as it may. We find no merit in the civil application. The civil application is, therefore, rejected. Civil Application No. 9083 Of 2026:- 10. For the reasons stated in the civil application, the civil application is allowed. Respondent Petitioner shall add applicant as party respondent in the writ petition. Addition be carried out forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Y. V. Kakade waives service for the added respondent. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH