High Court
Legal Reasoning
WP 6129/251IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6129 OF 2025Shaikh Mobin s/o. Abdul Kareem,Age 39 yrs., Occu. Agril.,(Sarpanch), R/o. Kausadi, Tq. Jintur, District Parbhani….Petitioner.Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Principal Secretary,Rural Development Deptt.,Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.2.Collector, ParbhaniDistrict Parbhani.3.The Chief Executive OfficerZilla Parishad, Parbhani.4.Block Development Officer,Panchayat Samiti, Jintur,District Parbhani.5.Ranjana w/o. Hanuman Somani,Age 50 yrs., Occu. Housewife,6.Balasaheb s/o. Wamanrao Bahirat,Age 57 yrs., Occu. Agril.,7.Anita w/o. Dnyaneshwar Baravkar,Age 33 yrs., Occu. Housewife.8.Rizwana w/o. Shaikh Anwar,Age 38 yrs., Occu. Housewife,9.Mohd. Khan w/o. Rahim Khan Pathan (Died)10. Anjana w/o Eknath Ikhe,Age 40 yrs., Occu. Housewife,11.Wajeed s/o Mehmood Ansari,Age 37 yrs, Occu. Agril.12.Sarika w/o Dnyaneshwar Jiwane,Age 33 yrs., Occu. Housewife,13.Kailas s/o Rohidas Rathod, WP 6129/252Age 35 yrs., Occu. Agril.,14.Gramsevak,Grampanchayat Kausadi,Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.Above from 5 to 13 All r/o.Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,District Parbhani.…..Respondents.(Resp. Nos. 2 to 11 are original applicants)...Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. R.D. Khadap, advocate for thepetitioner.Mr. P.D. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.Mr. D.M. Shinde Advocate h/f. Mr. R.K. Ingole, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 14. Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent No. 8.Mr. R.D. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 7, 10, 12 and 13. ...CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE : 12/09/2025JUDGMENT :-1.By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging theimpugned order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the District Collector, Parbhaniin case No. 2024/SP/GPN-2/PK 02, thereby disqualifying the petitioner to bea member-Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Kausadi, Tq. Jintur, District Parbhaniin terms of provisions contained in section 7(1) r/w. 36 of the MaharashtraVillage Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958).2.Brief facts, leading to the institution of the present writ petition aresummarized as under :-On 22.9.2022 the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch ofGrampanchayat Kausadi, Tq. Jintur, District Parbhani. On 5.1.2024 WP 6129/253respondent Nos. 4 to 13, original complainants filed Grampanchayat DisputeApplication No. 2/2024 before respondent No. 2/Collector, Parbhani, seekingdisqualification of the petitioner for non-holding of monthly and Gram Sabhameetings. The petitioner filed his reply to the complaint. On 26.6.2024 therespondent No. 2/Collector allowed the complaint filed by the respondentsNo. 4 to 13 and disqualified the petitioner to be a Sarpanch of theGrampanchayat in terms of provisions contained in section 7(1) and 36 ofthe Act of 1958. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before thisCourt and the matter was remanded back by the High Court by quashingthe order of the Collector. Thereafter, there was another round of litigationwhen the petitioner was disqualified by the Collector. The matter was againremanded by this Court and this is the third round of litigation in which thepetitioner is disqualified to be the Sarpanch. 3.Mr. V.D. Sapkal, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits thatthe only charge stated to be proved against the petitioner is charge Nos. 3and 4 whereas charge Nos. 1 and 2 as regards not holding the monthlymeetings are concerned, the said charge is not established. Charge Nos. 3and 4 relates to non holding of the Gram Sabha meeting. The learnedSenior counsel submits that except one all other Gram Sabha meetings aredefacto held. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submittedthat the Collector was required to specify the charge as directed by earlierorder of this court and the Collector was required to consider whether themeetings were not held for sufficient reasons. As regards charge Nos. 3 and4 are concerned, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner waselected as Sarpanch on 22.9.2022 and he took charge of the said post on6.10.2022 and that the first meeting was required to be held in November WP 6129/2542022. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitionerhad taken charge in the middle of the financial year in October 2022 andthe meeting of the Gram Sabha was not taken in the month of November2022 immediately after assuming charge and the petitioner had taken thesubsequent meeting of Gram Sabha in the month of January 2023. Thepetitioner was also not guided by the Gramsevak (Secretary of Panchayat)members or any officials of the Panchayat for calling the Gram Sabhameeting. The learned Senior Counsel particular points out section 7 of theAct of 1958 and submitted that as newly elected Sarpanch of the Panchayatin October 2022, he was not fully aware as to the requirement of holdingthe Gram Sabha meeting immediately in November 2022. As regards themeeting held in January 2023 is concerned, it is alleged in the charge that itwas not conducted with requisite quorum and that the petitioner submitsthat requisite quorum in terms of meeting rules is of 15% of the Panchayatvoters or 100 voters whichever is less. The meeting was attained by 84voters in January 2023. The learned Senior Counsel submits that there issubstantial compliance in respect of the meeting held in January 2023 andeven in terms of the rules, at the best, the petitioner could have deferredthe meeting and thereafter, the meeting could have been held with 84voters or even with less number of voters. The learned Senior Counselsubmits that at the highest, it can be said that there was infraction of rulesin holding the meeting and disqualification cannot be imposed for suchinfraction of rules. The learned Senior Counsel particularly relied upon thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant BhoirVs. District Collector, Raigad and Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1339, soalso judgment of this court passed on 24.02.2023 in Writ Petition No.
Legal Reasoning
WP 6129/2559427/2022 in the case of Shri Manohar s/o. Dnyaneshwar Pote Vs. TheCollector, Jalna and Ors.4.Per contra, Mr. M.P. Kale and R.D. Gaikwad, learned counselappearing for the complainant, so also Mr. D.M. Shinde, learned counselappearing for Zilla Parishad submitted that in view of the Rule 10(2) of theBombay Village Panchayats (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules, 1959(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule of 1959’ for short), the petitioner isrequired to maintain quorum, so also in absence of quorum, thepetitioner/Sarpanch was required to follow the procedure as contemplatedin above rule of deferring the meeting and thereafter holding the meeting.It is submitted that the meeting which is not conducted in terms of the rulesis not a meeting in terms of law and as per section 7 r/w. section 36 of theAct of 1958, the petitioner is disqualified as Sarpanch of village. The learnedcounsel further submits that as regards the meeting which was required tobe conducted in November 2022, the petitioner had taken charge of thepost of Sarpanch on 6.10.2022 and it was mandatory requirement toconduct the Gram Sabha meeting in November 2022. Democraticparticipation of all the members of the village is mandatory in democracyand non holding of the Gram Sabha meeting would lead to disqualificationof the petitioner. There is no reason mentioned for not holding the GramSabha meeting in November 2022 except that the petitioner took charge on6.10.2022. There was no prohibition or impediment in holding Gram sabhameeting in November 2022. It is further submitted that once it is held thatGram Sabha meeting of November 2022 is not held by the petitioner andthere is no sufficient reason for not holding the Gram Sabha meeting, it isthe mandate of section 7 r/w. Section 36 of the Act of 1958 to disqualify the
Decision
WP 6129/256petitioner.5.Considered the rival submissions. Perused the record. At the outset, itis required to be noted that this is the third round of litigation between theparties. In earlier rounds of litigation this Court by order dated 27.11.2024passed in Writ Petition No. 6618/2024 had directed the respondentauthority to stipulate the charge and consider the sufficiency of reasons fornon-holding of meetings and disposed of the writ petition. Para 2 of theorder reads as under :-“2.In view of this, this Court finds that it will be in theinterest of justice to remand the matter back to the Collectorfor fresh decision. Hence, the matter is remanded back tothe Collector, Parbhani for fresh decision. The Collector shallspecify the charge, which the petitioners have to answer.The Collector to also further consider as to whether themeetings were not held for sufficient reasons.”6.In pursuance of the above order passed by this court, notice wasgiven to the petitioner and charges were framed against the petitioner bythe Collector, which reads as under :-v-dz-nks’kkjksi1 माहेडि(cid:6)सेंबर-२०२२, जानेवारी-२०२३, एडि(cid:19)(cid:20)रल-२०२३, मे-२०२३, जून-२०२३, जुलै-२०२३,ऑगस्ट-२०२३, सप्टेंबर-२०२३, ऑक्टोबर-२०२३, नोव्हेंबर-२०२३, डि(cid:6)सेंबर- २०२३वजानेवारी- २०२४यामडिहन्यांच्यामाडिसकसभेचीसूचनाकाहीसदस्यांनानदेणे.2 माहेऑक्टोबर-२०२२, नोव्हेंबर-२०२२, जानेवारी-२०२३, फेब(cid:20)रुवारी-२०२३, माच--२०२३,एडि(cid:19)(cid:20)रल-२०२३, मे-२०२३, जून-२०२३, जूलै-२०२३, ऑगस्ट-२०२३, सप्टेंबर- २०२३या मडिहन्याच्यामाडिसकसभाइडि/वृ/ाखालीसभाअध्यक्षम्हणूनसर(cid:19)ंच, /रसडिचवम्हणून ग(cid:20)रामसेवकयांनीसहीनकरणे.3 ग(cid:20)राम(cid:19)ंचाय/साव-डि/(cid:20)रकडिनव(cid:6)णुकीनं/रग(cid:20)राम(cid:19)ंचाय/ीचीसुरुवा/डिदनांक०६/१०/२०२२ रोजीझाल्यानेआडि;-कवर्ष-२०२२- २०२३मधीलउव-डिर/बाकीराडिहलेल्यादोन ग(cid:20)रामसभां(cid:19)ैकीनोव्हेंबर- २०२२यामडिहन्या/आयोडिज/करणेआवश्यकअसलेली ग(cid:20)रामसभाआयोडिज/नकरणेवजानेवारी- २०२३यामडिहन्या/ीलग(cid:20)रामसभागण(cid:19)ू/ी- नस/ांनाआयोडिज/करणेवसभाइडि/वृत्ताखालीसभाअध्यक्षम्हणूनसर(cid:19)ंच, /रसडिचव म्हणूनग(cid:20)रामसेवकयांनीसहीनकरणे.4 आडि;-कवर्ष-२०२३- २०२४मधीलऑगस्ट-२०२३, नोव्हेंबर- २०२३यामडिहन्या/आयोडिज/ करणेअडिनवाय-असलेल्याग(cid:20)रामसभागण(cid:19)ू/ी-नस/ांनाआयोडिज/करणे, /सेचऑगस्ट-२०२३, नोव्हेंबर- २०२३यामडिहन्या/ीलग(cid:20)रामभेसहमाहेएडि(cid:19)(cid:20)रल-मे, २०२३मध्ये WP 6129/257 आयोडिज/करणेआवश्यकअसलेल्याग(cid:20)रामसभेच्याइडि/वृत्ताखालीसभाअध्यक्षम्हणूनसर(cid:19)ंच, /रसडिचवम्हणूनग(cid:20)रामसेवकयांनीसहीनकरणे.7.As regards holding of monthly meetings are concerned, the same areheld as per the rules and there is no deficiency in this regard. As such, thisCourt is concerned only with charge Nos. 3 and 4 as noted above underwhich the petitioner is disqualified for not holding the Gram Sabha meeting.By the impugned order, the Collector has held that four Gram Sabhameetings were required to be held in financial year 2022-2023 i.e. from 1stApril 2022 to 31st March 2023. In the financial year 2022-2023 thepetitioner took charge of the post of Sarpanch in October 2022 and as such,he was required to hold two Gram Sabha meetings in the financial year inNovember 2022 and January 2023 and that the petitioner has failed to holdthe Gram Sabha meeting in November 2022. Further, the Collector has heldthat the petitioner has violated Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1959, as in themeeting held in January 2023 only 84 members were present, in themeeting held in August 2023 only 88 members were preset, in the meetingheld in November 2023 only 91 members were present. The petitioner hadgiven reasons to hold Gram Sabha Meetings with insufficient quorum as thevillagers were involved in the agricultural activity and as such, all of themdo not remain present in the meetings and securing presence of thevillagers in the meetings is not in the hands of the petitioner and thatpetitioner has held the Gram Sabha meetings from the available members.The Collector held that the reasons given by the petitioner for holding GramSabha meetings with insufficient quorum is not satisfactory and in terms ofRule 10(2) of the Rules of 1959 in the event of non availability of thequorum, the meeting ought to have been deferred and thereafter held by WP 6129/258giving fresh notice. The petitioner has conducted the Gram Sabha meetingswith insufficient quorum and held the same without deferring the meetingfor want of quorum. The Collector, thus, held that the petitioner has violatedthe above rules and held that charge Nos. 3 and 4 are established againstthe petitioner and has disqualified the petitioner.8.Before proceeding further, it is necessary to consider the relevantprovisions. Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1958 reads as under :-“7. Meetings of Gram sabha:“(1)There shall be held at least four meetings of the GramSabha every financial year on such date, at such time andplace, and in such manner as may be prescribed and if theSarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch fails withoutsufficient cause, to hold any of such four meetings he shallbe disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the casemay be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for theremainder of the term of office of the members of thepanchayat; and the Secretary of the panchayat shall also if,prima facie, found responsible of any lapse in conveningsuch meeting, be liable to be suspended, and for beingproceeded against, for such other disciplinary action asprovided under the relevant rules. The decision of theCollector on the question whether or not there was suchsufficient cause shall be final:Provided that, the Sarpanch may, at any time of hisown motion, and shall, on requisition of the StandingCommittee, Panchayat Samiti, or Chief Executive Officer, calla meeting of the Gram Sabha within the period specified inthe requisition; and, on the failure to do so, the ChiefExecutive Officer shall require the Block Development Officerto call the meeting within fifteen days from the date he is sorequired to do. The meeting shall, notwithstanding theprovisions of sub-section (3), be presided over by him or anyofficer authorised by the Block Development Officer, in thatbehalf:Provided further that, a period of not more than fourmonths shall be allowed to elapse between the twomeetings of the Gram Sabha:Provided also that, if the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, WP 6129/259as the case may be, fails to call any such meeting within thespecified period, the Secretary shall call the meeting and itshall be presumed that, such meeting has been called withthe concurrence of the Sarpanch or, as the case may be,Upa-Sarpanch.”9.Rules 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Gram Sabha Meetings)Rules of 1959 is as under :-“10.(1)Fifteen per cent of the total number of personsincluded in the list of voters or hundred such persons,whichever is less, shall form a quorum for a meeting of theGram Sabha.(2)If a meeting is adjourned for want of quorum, noquorum shall be necessary for the adjourned meeting but afresh notice of such adjourned meeting shall be given in themanner provided in rule 6.”10.This Court in the case of Shri Manohar s/o Dnyaneshwar Pote citedsupra with regard to the law on disqualification of Sarpanch has observed atpara 16 and 17 as under :-“16] The law on the subject i.e. disqualification of an electedmember for not complying mandatory provisions is dealt with inthe cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad andothers reported in [2012] 4 SCC 407, Gangabai Vithal Bade Vs.State of Maharashtra & ors. Reported 2013 [3] Bom.C.R. 277 andSunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others in WritPetition No.3419 of 2013, decided on 04.12.2013. The Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. DistrictCollector, Raigad and others reported in [2012] 4 SCC 407 hasheld at para nos.35, 36 and 37 as under:35. The elected official is accountable to its electoratebecause he is being elected by a large number ofvoters. His removal has serious repercussions as he isremoved from the post and declared disqualified tocontest the elections for a further stipulated period, butit also takes away the right of the people of hisconstituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly,the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person WP 6129/2510can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, buthe cannot be removed without strictly adhering to theprovisions provided by the legislature for his removal(vide Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, Mohan Lal Tripathi v.District Magistrate, Rae Bareily and Ram Beti v. DistrictPanchayat Raj Adhikari].36. In view of the above, the law on the issue standscrystallised to the effect that an elected member can beremoved in exceptional circumstances giving strictadherence to the statutory provisions and holding theenquiry, meeting the requirement of principles ofnatural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunityto defend himself, for the reason that removal of anelected person casts stigma upon him and takes awayhis valuable statutory right. Not only the elected office-bearer but his constituency / electoral college is alsodeprived of representation by the person of theirchoice.37. A duly elected person is entitled to hold office forthe term for which he has been elected and he can beremoved only on a proved misconduct or any otherprocedure established under law like “no confidencemotion”, etc. The elected official is accountable to itselectorate as he has been elected by a large number ofvoters and it would have serious repercussions when heis removed from the office and further declareddisqualified to contest the election for a furtherstipulated period.17] This Court in the case of Gangabai Vithal Bade Vs. State ofMaharashtra & ors. Reported 2013 [3] Bom.C.R. 277, it has beenheld at paras 4 and 5, as under:-4. No doubt, provisos of section 7 provided variousother requirements of Gram Sabha meetings. Inaddition to section 7, there are rules made forproviding procedure etc. of Gram Sabha meetings.Section 7 on the whole read with rules indicates that aSarpanch or in his absence Upsarpanch should at leasthold six meetings of Gram Sabha every financial year.Proviso and rules provided inter alia that maximumperiod of three months is permitted between twomeetings of Gram Sabha. Sub-section (5) of section 7 WP 6129/2511further provides that meeting of women members ofGram Sabha should be held before the regular meetingof Gram Sabha. In addition to this, prescribed rules,namely, Bombay Village Panchayats Rules, 1959 furtherenjoins a Sarpanch to hold first meeting of Gram Sabhaof every financial year within two months from thecommencement of the year and second should be heldin November every year. They further provide thatGram Sabha meeting should be held also in August andJanuary of every year. In my view, since the rule inrespect of disqualification is mentioned in sub-section(1) and since it is a penal provision, strict constructionis required to be given to it. Sub-section (1) clearly laysdown a rule that only in case of failure to hold six GramSabha meetings, the Sarpanch would incurdisqualification. Other requirements of meeting are notincluded in sub-section (1) and so in case of nonobservance of other requirements penal consequenceof disqualification is not incurred. In other words, if sixmeetings are held in one financial year, but they werenot held as per remaining provisions contained insection 7 or in the rules, a Sarpanch may not incurdisqualification.5. Second point that arose in this case is whetherthe petitioner / sarpanch incurred disqualification incase he did not give notice of meetings. LearnedAssistant Collector held that because of want of notice,he incurred disqualification. The rules provided thatsarpanch is responsible for giving seven days notice ofeach Gram Sabha meeting. It is observed that sevendays notice for meetings was not given by thepetitioner. The learned Assistant Collector held thatbecause of this lapse the petitioner would incurdisqualification. I am not in agreement with this rulingalso. I would place reliance only on sub-section (1) ofsection 7 when I would examine whether the petitionerincurred disqualification. As said above, other lapses orinfringement of other rules and provisos, in my viewwill not incur drastic result of disqualification. Thepetition, therefore, should succeed on merit. Theimpugned order stands set aside.”11.Considering the above quoted provisions of section of the Act of WP 6129/25121958, the petitioner would incur disqualification if he fails to conduct theGram Sabha meetings without “sufficient cause”. In view of the judgmentin the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Courthas held that removal of elected official has serious repercussions and hehas to be removed in exceptional circumstances by giving strict adherenceto the statutory provisions and after holding inquiry. In the case of RaviYashwant Bhoir cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thatviolation of statutory provisions does not per-se lead to the disqualificationof the member if the member has sufficient cause for not holding themeeting. In the present case, the petitioner is elected as Sarpanch inOctober 2022. Section 7 of the Act of 1958 provides that there shall be heldat least four meetings of the Gram Sabha every financial year on such date,at such time and place, and in such manner as may be prescribed and if theSarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch fails without sufficient cause,to hold any of such four meetings he shall be disqualified for continuing asSarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as suchfor the remainder of the term of office of the members of the panchayat;and the Secretary of the panchayat shall also if, prima facie, foundresponsible of any lapse in convening such meeting, be liable to besuspended, and for being proceeded against, for such other disciplinaryaction as provided under the relevant rules. Second proviso to section 7 ofthe Act of 1958 provides that, if the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, as the casemay be, fails to call any such meeting within the specified period, theSecretary shall call the meeting and it shall be presumed that, such meetinghas been called with the concurrence of the Sarpanch or, as the case maybe, Upa-Sarpanch.The decision of the Collector on the question whether or WP 6129/2513not there was such “sufficient cause” shall be final. 12.In the instant case, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in October2022 and he has stated that he was not be aware that Gram Sabha wasrequired to be conducted in November 2022 and that there is no record toindicate that even the Gramsevak or any other official has brought it to thenotice of the petitioner/Sarpanch that Gram Sabha meeting was required tobe held or that they called upon the petitioner to hold the meeting. Theerror at the instance of petitioner is bonafide. Mere statutory violation doesnot lead to disqualification. The reasons given are palpable and ought tohave been ordinarily accepted when Gramsevak or any Government officialdeputed have also failed to perform their duty and that there is no record toindicate that in spite of bringing it to the notice of the Sarpanch, suchmeeting was not conducted and that the petitioner has failed to hold themeeting. The Collector has observed that the petitioner has failed to holdthe Gram Sabha meeting and is thus liable to be disqualified. The Collectorhas not discussed the sufficiency of reasons and he has given his findingson the basis of non holding of the meeting itself as good enough todisqualify the petitioner. This matter has been remanded on many occasionsand it is the third round of litigation and the petitioner who has beenSarpanch has been facing difficulties in performing his duty towards hisvillage. The petitioner has held all monthly meetings. The petitioner onbeing elected as Sarpanch in November 2022 had no reason to deliberatelynot hold Gram Sabha meeting in November 2022. It is not pointed out thatthe petitioner/Sarpanch wanted to avoid the Gram Sabha meeting to avoidany particular inconvenient topic of discussion. The reason given for nonholding of Gram Sabha meeting of November 2022 is an acceptable one. As WP 6129/2514such this Court holds that the petitioner had ‘sufficient cause’ for nonholding of Gram Sabha meeting of November 2022. 13.As regards second charge of not holding Gram Sabha meeting inJanuary 2023 and subsequent meeting in April 2023, August 2023,November 2023 with sufficient quorum is concerned, it is to be noted thatviolation of the rules would not per-se entail disqualification unless Collectorcomes to the conclusion that no Gram Sabha meeting was held. Infractionof the meeting rules cannot automatically leads to disqualification. Enquiryconducted by the Collector is summary in nature and based on the recordmaintained by the Gram Panchayat. The signatures thereon of 84 to 91members at different meetings. Deficient quorum, which is very negligible,is not alone sufficient to hold that there was no meeting. Even if meetingwas deferred and again called the same can be conducted without quorumand the meeting can be proceed statutorily. Such marginal infraction interms of quorum cannot lead to disqualification. Only because record showsthat members present were between 84 to 91 for the meetings noted incharge No. 4, it cannot be held for same in a summary inquiry that therewas insufficient quorum. It is possible that all voters present have notsigned. In a summary inquiry, in case of marginal difference of number ofvoters present, no definite opinion can be given that the quorum wasinsufficient. Even proceding on the basis that the quorum was insufficient,marginal infraction of the rules per-se do not lead to the disqualification. Inthe present case and such a minor infraction cannot be taken intoconsideration and on the basis of such infraction of rules, it cannot be heldthat the petitioner has failed to conduct the meetings. In a summary inquiryproceedings if it is found that there is a minor infraction of some rule in WP 6129/2515conducting meeting, that itself cannot lead to disqualification and that is notthe purport of section 7 of the Act of 1958. Elected representative has todischarge his duty towards his electorate and electorate is also entitled tohave elected representative to represent them. In democratic set up theelected representative has to perform duty in terms of statutory provisions.Minor infraction to the rules may not lead to disqualification and suchinterpretation of the statute would not serve the purpose of the Act.14.Considering that the petitioner/Sarpanch had ‘sufficient cause’ for nonholding of ‘Gram Sabha’ meeting of November 2022 and also the meetingsof April 2023, August 2023 and November 2023 in the cases of marginallyinsufficient quorum, no definite opinion can be given on the basis of recordof the Panchayat that the quorum was insufficient in a summary inquiry.Even if the quorum was marginally insufficient, minor infraction of rules ofquorum cannot lead to disqualification of Elected Representative (GangabaiVithal Bade supra). The elected representative/petitioner has also givenreason for the minor infraction of quorum that the villagers were involved inagricultural work and may have not attended meetings in good numbers.The reasons given should not be discarded unless there is malafide reasonfor not conducting meeting or for going ahead with the meeting withmarginal infraction of quorum. The impugned order is thus quashed and setaside. The petitioner is restored to his post of Sarpanch. The writ petition isaccordingly allowed and disposed of.[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]ssc/