Shri Bandu Budhaji Sorkhade v. Grampanchayat Davadi & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Jul 2008
- Bench
- R V MORE
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Having learned counsel parties having through impugned order, I perversity illegality approach adopted authorities below. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.]
Judgment
respondents 3, 7 and 8 and Mr.Dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 6.
The petitioner removed sarpanch Grampanchayat, Davadi Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division provisions Section 39 Bombay Village Panchayats Act,
1958. The petitioner’s removal is confirmed by the Hon’ble Minister, Rural Development Department in an Appeal.
There charges against 2 petitioner-sarpanch. The Divisional Commissioner charges sr. nos. 1,2, 4 5 proved charge no.3 partially proved. One charge inspite Gramsabha village Davadi having resolved permission Liquor Bar, petitioner subsequent Grampanchayat meeting granted permission to one Ila Ravi Patil to conduct the liquor bar in village Davadi.
The submission resolution passed petitioner Grampanchayat meeting subsequently cancelled. However, through minutes meeting, I petitioner - sarpanch presided Gramsabha meeting. He aforesaid resolution passed Gramsabha. Inspite this, subject giving permission Liquor Bar agenda Grampanchayat meeting. This Grampanchayat meeting attended members. One member Asha Chandrakant Patil opposed resolution ground already Gramsabha resolution Grampanchayat resolution passed contrary earlier resolution. Even Gram Sevak pointed petitioner- sarpanch resolution passed. Inspite resolution passed permission this, Ila Ravi Patil Liquor Bar. Subsequently 3 resolution cancelled villagers protested against same. In matter, I influenced by subsequent cancellation of the resolution.
Both Authorities below, hearing petitioner, conclusion petitioner does not deserve to be continued on the post of sarpanch.
Having learned counsel parties having through impugned order, I perversity illegality approach adopted authorities below. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] [R.V.
[R.V. MORE,J.]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 — s. 39.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 10 Jul 2008. The bench was R V MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.