AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present writ petition takes exception to communication dated 13/05/2026 issued by respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, whereby operation of order dated 08/05/2026 recording name of petitioner as "Gatneta" came to be stayed.
In month of January 2026, General Elections to Parbhani Municipal Corporation were held for 65 seats. Petitioners and respondent No.4 were elected as councillors on BJP Ticket. In meeting dated 22/01/2026, respondent No.4 came to be elected as Gatneta of Municipal Party. Accordingly, name of respondent No.4 came to be recorded as Gatneta by Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Thereafter, vide notice dated 06/05/2026, petitioners convened meeting of members of Municipal Party. In meeting held on 08/05/2026, resolution came to be passed electing petitioner No.1 as Gatneta in place of respondent No.4. Accordingly, communication was addressed to respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner, who took note of change in official record.
The respondent No.4 made representation to Divisional Commissioner objecting action of recording of name of petitioner No.1 as Gatneta. Acting upon said representation, respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner issued impugned communication dated 13/05/2026, thereby staying operation of his earlier order dated 08/05/2026 whereby name of petitioner No.1 was recorded as Gatneta of Municipal Party.
Mr. S. G. Jadhavar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, submits that respondent No.2 had no power to review or recall his earlier order. He had acted upon resolution dated 08/05/2026 passed by petitioners whereby petitioner No.1 came to be elected as Gatneta. Resolution clearly indicates that same was passed by majority. All petitioners remained present in meeting dated 08/05/2026 and resolved to elect petitioner No.1 as Gatneta of Municipal Party in place of respondent No.4. In this backdrop, there was no reason for respondent No.2 to entertain representation submitted by respondent No.4 which was not supported by any material demonstrating illegality or infirmity in resolution electing petitioner No.1 as Gatneta.
Today, this Court has delivered detailed Judgment and order in Writ Petition No.7406 of 2026, whereby challenge raised by respondent No.4 to order dated 08/05/2026 passed by respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner recording change of Gatneta pursuant to resolution dated 08/05/2026 passed by petitioners came to be rejected. In view of findings and reasons recorded therein, impugned communication dated 13/05/2026 would not survive. In result, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B".