The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Government’s June 2022 notification that bifurcated the existing Burudkhe Gram Panchayat into two new panchayats Pinjarzadi and Panchmauli. The petitioners, residents of Burudkhe, alleged that the reorganisation violated legal norms and compromised protections granted to Scheduled Areas.
A Division Bench comprising Justices R.G. Avachat and Neeraj P. Dhote held that the bifurcation was legally valid and in accordance with Section 4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Court found that the State Government had fulfilled its statutory obligation of consulting the concerned Gram Panchayat before issuing the notification. It clarified that the statute does not mandate the State to act in accordance with the Panchayat’s recommendation, nor does it prescribe any rigid procedure for such consultation.
The petitioners had argued that the reorganisation ignored a 2021 resolution recommending the formation of a separate panchayat only for Pinjarzadi and unilaterally altered the territorial status of Burudkhe. They further contended that such restructuring undermined their identity and local autonomy as a Scheduled Area.
The Court, however, rejected these claims, stating that the constitutional or statutory status of Burudkhe as a Scheduled Area remained unaffected. Referring to Sheshrao Bhaurao Jadhav v. Commissioner, Aurangabad, 982 Mh. L.J. 787, the Court reiterated that “consultation” under Section 4 does not require a specific format and need only involve an exchange of views between the Panchayat and the Commissioner.
Reinforcing the principle that matters relating to panchayat restructuring fall within the administrative discretion of the State Government, the Court held that judicial intervention is unwarranted unless there is a manifest illegality. It also noted that complete consensus within a village is not a precondition for bifurcation, especially when such steps are taken to strengthen local governance.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the June 2022 notification and dismissed the writ petition.
Appearances:
For Petitioners: Mr. D.S. Bagul
For State (Respondents 1 & 2): Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP
For Respondents 3 & 4: Mr. N.N. Desale
For Respondent 5: Mr. Lalit S. Mahajan
For Respondent 6: Mr. A.V. Patil
