1 74wp11311.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 74 WRIT PETITION NO. 11311 OF 2026 GOVIND SUKHDEORAO AAGE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS MINISTER RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS. ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jadhwar Sidhesh V. AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. Vaishali S. Chaudhari Advocate for Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sharad S. Solanke and Mr.Atul R. Muley … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 15.09.2026. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.08.2026, passed by the Minister Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra State, thereby staying the order dated 22.07.2026, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 is the Sarpanch of Grampanchyat Kitti Aadgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. After the election of village panchayat was held in December, 2022 for a period of 2022 to 2026 and in the said election, respondent No. 5 was directly elected as Sarpcnah. Since he did not discharge his duties properly, a report came to be lodged against him before Anti-Corruption Bureau. On the basis of said report, raid was conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Respondent No. 5 was arrested and thereafter the First Information Report came to be registered against him under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2 74wp11311.26.odt 2. Against that petitioner has filed a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchyat Act seeking disqualification of respondent No. 5. 3. Respondent No. 2, the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar has passed an order allowing the complaint application of the petitioner and disqualified respondent No. 5 from the post of Sarpanch of village panchayat. Respondent No. 5 has preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1, the Minister of Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without affording any opportunity to him, the impugned order has been stayed by the Minister vide order dated 19.08.2026, staying the order dated 22.07.2026, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing impugned order. It was stated that this order of stay is temporary stay and its communication says that its hearing will be communicated to the petitioner from the next date. However, the communication was issued by the Desk Officer to the Divisional Commissioner office about the stay of order passed by the Minister. In the said communication, however, it was merely stated that, further dates of the hearing will be communicated to the petitioner. With the 3 74wp11311.26.odt grievance of the said order the petitioner approached this Court and his grievance is that after the said order was passed there was no further communication of dates of hearing to the petitioner. 5. When the notice was issued, the learned APP was directed to take instructions about further dates of hearing. In response, he is in receipt of the communication dated 15.09.2026, wherein, she has been directed to inform this Court that she should seek time for a period of 2 weeks for hearing as well as to decide the appeal. 6. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Section 39 (3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchyat Act mandates that the State Government shall decide the said appeal within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of order from the Court. Although an appeal was filed on 26.07.2026, the order of stay was granted on 19.08.2026 and no further date has been communicated, even the statutory period provided as per Section 39 (3) is over and yet no decision has been taken. 7. In view of submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, as well as learned APP for State that the State will decide the appeal within a period of 2 weeks from today. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 within a period of 2 weeks from today, as undertaken vide communication dated 15.09.2026 as contemplated under Section 39 (3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchyat Act. 4 74wp11311.26.odt 8. With the aforesaid directions the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 9. Needless to mention here that this Court has not mentioned anything about the merits of the matter and all the contention of the parties are kept open, before agitating respondent No. 1 in the pending appeal. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) Mahajansb/