SHATRUGHNA MADHUKAR BAJAD vs THE COLLECTOR, WASHIM AND ORS. — WP/2748/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226, 227. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 14-Jun-2025

CNR: HCBM040166482025

Filing Number

WP/12235/2025

Filing Date

22-May-2025

Registration No

WP/2748/2025

Registration Date

22-May-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Bench Type

Single

Category

APPOINTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONARIES ( 3 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 08-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226, 227
Village Panchayats Act (Maharashtra)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHATRUGHNA MADHUKAR BAJAD

    Adv. SANTOSH DAMODAR CHANDE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE COLLECTOR, WASHIM AND ORS.

  2. 2.THE TAHSILDAR/PRESIDING OFFICER, RISOD, WASHIM

  3. 3.GRAM PANCHAYAT WADJI, WASHIM THR. SECRETARY

  4. 4.SAU. RANJANA AKATRAO BORKAR

  5. 5.SAU. SUNITA SANJAY MORE

  6. 6.SMT. SUNITA SANJAY MORE

  7. 7.SMT. KAMLABAI RAMRAO BORKAR

  8. 8.VINOD LAXMANRAO BORKAR

  9. 9.SATTARKHA WAJIRKHA PATHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dismissed the writ petition filed by Shatrughna Madhukar Bajad, the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Wadji, challenging a no-confidence motion passed against him on March 24, 2025, and the Collector's order dated April 29, 2025, confirming it under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The petitioner argued that the meeting was improperly split into two sessions with an hour's break, invoking the two-year bar provision under Section 35(3A). The Court found that only one meeting was held on the same day, the motion was properly proposed and seconded with 3/4th majority support, and was subsequently ratified by the Gram Sabha, making the no-confidence motion valid and enforceable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    For Admission-Village Panchayat Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    For Admission-Village Panchayat Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  6. 03-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  7. 03-Feb-2026

    For Admission-Village Panchayat Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  8. 20-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  9. 04-Dec-2025

    For Orders -

    Registrar (Judicial)

  10. 17-Oct-2025

    Registrar (Judicial)View PDF

  11. 14-Jul-2025

    For Orders -

    Registrar (Judicial)

  12. 30-Jun-2025

    Registrar (Judicial)View PDF

  13. 30-Jun-2025

    For Orders -

    Registrar (Judicial)

  14. 16-Jun-2025

    Registrar (Judicial)View PDF

  15. 14-Jun-2025

    —

  16. 10-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 27-May-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin S. PatilView PDF

  18. 22-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/2748/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dismissed the writ petition filed by Shatrughna Madhukar Bajad, the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Wadji, challenging a no-confidence motion passed against him on March 24, 2025, and the Collector's order dated April 29, 2025, confirming it under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The petitioner argued that the meeting was improperly split into two sessions with an hour's break, invoking the two-year bar provision under Section 35(3A). The Court found that only one meeting was held on the same day, the motion was properly proposed and seconded with 3/4th majority support, and was subsequently ratified by the Gram Sabha, making the no-confidence motion valid and enforceable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case