# RAMESH VASANTRAO PATIL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORS

Court: Bombay High Court
Date: 2025-07-16
Citation: WP/3729/2024
Petitioner: RAMESH VASANTRAO PATIL
Respondent: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORS

[Official PDF on Bombay High Court website](https://bombayhighcourt.gov.in/bhc/file/download/eyJpdiI6ImhCcUdDY05mMkVEVU1zRDNqeVRtbXc9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiR2xucE9xVUs5ZkdobWNwQi9LR2pnY3Y4ajdVcy8wMlQyT0M4aTZQZzFBZDA5aXFHK1A1SHpkcnk4dzRmNlJyUm9icUFzdUM2QWdIM1RKS1E0WDhxVHc9PSIsIm1hYyI6ImRkNzg5NGExNzczMWZhYTJlMzNiYTE4OTAzZWUzNWUwOWUyMWFjZDBhMzg1YzMxYzJiYWNiZmU2YjFlNDVmMmEiLCJ0YWciOiIifQ==?expires=1782775629&signature=d9bb5d16de14904d5f03694c0e39a0ef1da7ecc091ed23b3a7c1d949ed94748b)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner 3. The District Collector, Sangli 4. Bhanudas Yashwant Mote 5. Prakash Vilas Patil 6. Satish Manohar Gondkar ...Respondents _________ Mr. Pramod Patil with Mr. Shyamsunder Solanke i/b. PNP & Associates for Petitioner. Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP for State/Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vishal Kanade with Ms. Janhvi Joshi i/b. Mr. Bhalchandra Mote for Respondent No.4. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE: 16 JULY 2025. Oral Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.) :- 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 21 February 2024 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner (respondent no.2) being the appellate authority, upholding the disqualification of the petitioner as a member of the Gram Panchayat, Tandulwadi, Taluka – Walwa, District – Sangli under the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, “Panchayats Act”). 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass:- It is the petitioner’s case that prior to elections in question, general elections of the Village Panchayat were held on 16 16 July 2025 WP 3729-24.DOC Octo

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2025/july/ramesh-vasantrao-patil-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-thr-its-dept-of-rural-development-and-ors