High Court
Legal Reasoning
938-wp-10377-2024-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD938 WRIT PETITION NO. 10377 OF 2024Kausarbi Hilal PatelAge : 55 Years, Occu : HouseholdPresently working as Sarpanch of Village -KandariR/o. Village-kandari,Taluka-Dharangaon Disrict- JalgonMaharashtra...PetitionerVERSUS1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough Its Principal Secretary Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2.The Ld. District Collector,Jalgaon3.The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon4.The Block Development Officer(Class-1) Panchayat Samiti, Dharangaon5.Taher Abdul PatelAge – 50 years Occupation-Agriculture6.Shakil Vedu PatelAge- 48 years Occupation-Agriculture7.The Gram SevakOffice of Gram Panchayat KandariVillage – Kandari,Taluka- Dharangaon District- Jalgaon ...Respondents...Mr. Jitendra Vijay Patil, Advocate for the PetitionerNarwade 938-wp-10377-2024-2- Mr. V. S. Badakh, AGP for Respondents/StateMe. B. R. Warma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5,6,… CORAM :ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED :11th JULY 2025ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.The petitioner was elected as the member of GrampanchayatVillage Kandari, Taluka Dharangaon, Dist Jalgaon. Thereafter, he wasalso elected as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat. The Collector, Jalgaonhas vide order dated 12.09.2024 passed under Section 7 and 36 of theMaharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 incurred disqualificationon account of failure to hold four meetings of Gramsabha and 12monthly meetings of Grampanchayat as per Section 7 and 36respectively. 2.The dispute in the matter pertains to Gramsabha for the monthof August 2021 and meeting of Grampanchayat for the month ofSeptember 2021. The case of the petitioner is that the Gramsabhameeting for the month of August 2021 and monthly meeting ofGrampanchayat for the month of September 2021 were held.However he contends that at the relevant time, the Secretary ofGrampanchayat was absconding due to a criminal case andsubsequently he was suspended from service w.e.f. 30.08.2021 andNarwade 938-wp-10377-2024-3- therefore the records of Grampanchayat could not be taken from him.The learned Advocate contends that as a consequence of this theminutes of Gramsabha held in the month of August 2021 and monthlymeeting held in September 2021 were recorded in the separate bookand not in the regular record book. The learned Advocate thereforecontends that the findings in the order that meetings were not heldare incorrect and unsustainable. In the alternative he places relianceon judgment dated 15.03.2023 passed by this Court in the matter ofPundlik Tulashiram Sapkale Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. inWrit Petition No.1023 of 2023 to contend that absence of Gramsevakis a reason good enough for not conducting Gramsabha or a monthlymeeting. The contention of the learned Advocate is that failure tohold 4 Gramsabhas and 12 monthly meetings of Grampanchayat byitself cannot be ground for disqualification under Sections 7 and 36respectively of the Act. His contention is that disqualification underthe said provisions is incurred only when the Collector arrives at asatisfaction that the failure was without any sufficient cause. Absenceof Secretary, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner is asufficient cause for failure to hold meeting. The contention raised bythe learned Advocate is supported by the judgment of this Court inthe matter of Pundlik Tulashiram Sapkale (supra).Narwade 938-wp-10377-2024-4- 3.However, the facts of the present case, are slightly different. Inthe present case, the petitioner positively asserts that Gramsabha wasindeed held in the month of August 2020. Likewise, he also contendsthat monthly meeting was held in the month of September 2021.Since the contention is that meetings of Gramsabha andGrampanchayat were infact held despite absence of Secretary,absence of Secretary cannot be portrayed as sufficient cause for notholding the meeting. 4.The Collector while passing the impugned order disbelieved theevidence produced on record by the petitioner in support of thecontention that the meeting was infact held. It will be pertinent tomention that the minutes of Panchayat meeting held for the month ofNovember 2021 are not in dispute. The said minutes record thatmonthly meeting was not held for September 2021. The said minutesare signed by the petitioner as Sarpanch and other members of theGrampanchayat. In that view of the matter the contention of thepetitioner that monthly meeting for September 2021 was held cannotbe accepted. 5.As regards meeting held in August 2021, the same isdisbelieved because a separate proceeding book was maintained forNarwade 938-wp-10377-2024-5- the said meeting. As regards Gramsabha for the month of August2021 perusal of the order wherein contents of report by BlockDevelopment Officer are reproduced will reveal that the Gramsabhawas held although without following the prescribed procedure. Thereport indicates violation of breach of statutory provision and on thatbasis it is observed that the alleged Gramsabha was not a legallyconvened Gramsabha. The Collector while passing the impugnedorder has made an observation that the evidence produced on recordby the petitioner with respect to the meeting of Gramsabha for themonth of August 2021 does not inspire confidence. However, he hasnot recorded any specific reason for the same. The report also doesnot specifically state that Gramsabha for the month of August 2021was not held.6.In view of the aforesaid, the only inference that can be drawnwas although Gramsabha held in the month of August 2021 it was notconvened in accordance with law. What is contemplated underSection 7 of the Act is that a Sarpanch can be disqualified if there is afailure on his part to convene four Gramsabha meetings without anyjustifiable cause. Mere fact that procedure prescribed by statute is notscrupulously followed for convening Grampanchayat is not ground forNarwade 938-wp-10377-2024-6- disqualification under Section 7 of the Act. The provision will have tobe interpreted strictly in that view of the consequence of unseatingelected representatives. In the considered opinion of this Court theorder impugned is unsustainable to the extent of Section 7 of the Act. 7.However, as observed above, the findings with respect tofailure to hold monthly meeting for the month of September 2021 aresupported by express admission by the petitioner in the monthlymeeting held on 02.11.2021. In that view of the matter, the order ofdisqualification under Section 36 will have to be upheld.8.By the impugned order the Collector has held that thepetitioner has incurred disqualification from the office of Sarpanchand Member. However under Section 36 the Collector does not haveauthority to pass order of disqualification against a member of theGrampanchayat. In that view of the matter, the petition is partlyallowed. Disqualification of the petitioner as ‘Sarpanch’ under Section7 of the Act is set aside however his disqualification as ‘Sarpanch’under Section 36 of the Act is maintained. Disqualification of thepetitioner as member is also set aside. The petitioner shall continue tohold office of member of Grampanchayat.Narwade
Decision
938-wp-10377-2024-7- 9.Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.[ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]Narwade