Panchayat Must Be Named After Village With Largest Population, Not On Preferenc: Bombay High Court Upholds Validity Of Panchayat Bifurcation

“Consultation Requirement Under Law Fully Satisfied, Scheduled Area Status Remains Intact”: In a significant ruling Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Government's notification bifurcating the historic Burudkhe Panchayat into two new panchayats—Panchmauli and Pinjarzadi. The Court dismissed all objections raised regarding procedural lapses, Scheduled Area protections, and the naming of the newly formed panchayats.

 “Scheduled Area Status Is Of Village, Not Panchayat”

Rejecting the petitioners' contention that the bifurcation notification affected the Scheduled Area status of Burudkhe village, the Division Bench of Justice R.G. Avachat and Justice Neeraj P. Dhote observed:

“It is not that the ‘Burudkhe Panchayat’ was included in the Scheduled Area… there is nothing to show that the impugned notification abrogated the status of ‘Village Burudkhe’ as a Scheduled Area.” [Para 13]

The Court clarified that the Scheduled Areas (Maharashtra) Order, 1985, included only the village as a unit, and the administrative restructuring of the panchayat under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, had no bearing on Scheduled Area status.

Panchayat Naming Must Follow Law, Not Legacy

Addressing the grievance that the historic name “Burudkhe” was abolished despite its 65-year-old panchayat status, the Court emphasized statutory adherence to demographic data:

“It is the requirement of law to name the Panchayat on the basis of the largest population of the village… Panchmauli had a larger population than Burudkhe and hence was rightly named Panchmauli Panchayat.” [Para 12]

The Court cited Section 4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which mandates naming the panchayat after the village with the largest population within its jurisdiction. It reiterated that the naming is a matter of statutory prescription, not discretionary preference.

Government Followed Mandatory Consultation, No Procedural Violation

The petitioners alleged improper consultation with the Gram Sabha. However, the Court found the procedural record clear and robust, citing multiple layers of deliberation:

“It is explicit… that the impugned notification was the result of ‘consultation’ as contemplated under the provisions of Section 4… Gram Sabha resolutions, Standing Committee approvals, and administrative reviews were undertaken prior to issuance.” [Paras 9-11]

The Court relied on the Full Bench judgment in Sheshrao Bhaurao Jadhav v. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division (1982 Mh.L.J. 787), which interpreted “consultation” as communication of views rather than requiring direct or prolonged dialogue.

“Direct discussion is not an indispensable ingredient of any consultation… nor lengthy correspondence can be held to be ‘must’ when found unnecessary in a given case.” [Para 11]

Constitutionally Valid Exercise Of Executive Power

The Bench further observed that the government rightly exercised its powers under Article 154 of the Constitution, issuing the notification in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra:

“The executive action taken in the name of Governor is the executive action of the State… the notification fully complies with statutory requirements.” [Para 14]

The Court aligned its reasoning with the Supreme Court’s observations in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti (AIR 1995 SC 1512), that the Governor’s name signifies legitimate executive action of the State.

High Court Concludes: “Challenge Fails On All Counts”

Summing up, the Court concluded: “The challenge to the impugned notification raised by the petitioner fails on all counts.” [Para 15]

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court upheld the bifurcation of Burudkhe Panchayat and the consequent formation of Panchmauli and Pinjarzadi panchayats along with the recent elections conducted thereunder.

Clarity On Panchayat Governance In Scheduled Areas

This ruling reinforces that while Panchayat reorganization must adhere to consultation requirements, demographic primacy and statutory mandates override sentiments linked to historic administrative identities. The Scheduled Area status remains unaffected by internal administrative restructurings, preserving the constitutional protections of Scheduled Tribes while enabling efficient local self-governance structures.

Date of Decision: 16 July 2025