BHARAT SHRIRAMEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSMr v. B. Kulkarni

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD960 WRIT PETITION NO. 11920 OF 2024MANJULABAI BHARAT SHRIRAMEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSMr. V. B. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D. B. Bhange, AGP for the respondent/StateMr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No.3Mr. A. R. Kawade h/f Mr. S. B. Madde, Advocate for respondent No.4Dr. R. R. Deshpande h/f Ms. P. R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.5CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 27th FEBRUARY, 2025PER COURT :-1.This petition takes exception to the order dated 7th October,2024 passed by District Collector, Nanded in File No.2023/GB/Desk-1/GraPaNi/CR-45 passed under the provisions of Sections7 and 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short ‘the Act’),whereby the petitioner was declared as disqualified as Sarpanch ofGrampanchayat Rui, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded.2.It is a case of the petitioner that in the elections of villagepanchayat Rui, the petitioner was elected as member in January 2021and subsequently was elected as a Sarpanch amongst the members ofthe Grampanchayat. Respondent No.5 filed Dispute Application under960.wp11920.24.odt1 of 6 Sections 7 and 36 of the Act. B.D.O., Kandhar Panchayat Samiticonducted enquiry and submitted report on 19th May, 2023. It is agrievance of the petitioner that report was incomplete and the same wassubmitted without giving opportunity to the petitioner. It is alleged thatwithout mentioning specific charges notice came to be issued by theCollector to the petitioner. In response to the said notice, she appearedbefore the Collector and filed reply with explanation. It is a case of thepetitioner that the Collector, Nanded passed order dated 16th November,2023 disqualifying the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Beingaggrieved by the said order petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No.15269 of 2023 before this Court. By order dated 16th November, 2023the order passed by the Collector came to be quashed and set aside andthe matter was remanded for considering explanation of the petitioner. Itis thereafter another report was called from the Deputy CEO(Panchayat), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The Collector passed impugnedorder dated 7th October, 2024 without considering the reasons given bythe petitioner and without recording findings about the ground ofsufficiency for her disqualification, hence, this petition.3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerhas not been given notice by the B.D.O. as well as by the CEO whileconducting the enquiry and no specific charges were communicated to960.wp11920.24.odt2 of 6 her by the Collector and therefore in view of the judgment of this Courtin case of Pratibha w/o Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector, Latur andothers, 2010(5) Mh.L.J., 47 the order impugned cannot sustain. It is hissubmission that in such circumstances question of disqualification of thepetitioner as a Sarpanch does not arise and that order deserves to be setaside. He submits that the Collector has incorrectly taken intoconsideration the non conducting the meeting of March, 2023 which isbeyond the notice issued to the petitioner.4.Learned counsel for respondent No.5 and learned AGPsupported the impugned order. It is the contention of the learnedcounsel for the contesting respondent that there is ample evidence onrecord in order to indicate that the monthly meeting as well as GramSabha were not conducted as contemplated by Sections 7 and 36 of theAct. It is his submission that even if the contention of the petitioner hasaccepted that for want of corum the meeting was adjourned, theadjourned meeting is never conducted and as such it amounts to breachof relevant provision. He submits that it was a case of the petitionerherself that she had conducted the 8 meetings of Gram Sabha from11/06/2021 to 18/10/2022. He, however, points out that as per theBombay Village Panchayat (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules, 1959, holdingof 4 Gram Sabha is mandatory in a financial year which is from April to960.wp11920.24.odt3 of 6 March. He also drew attention of the Court to Rule 3(1), whichcontemplates holding first meeting of Gram Sabha in every financial yearwithin two months of the commencement of year and second meetingshall be held on November every year. It is thus his contention that fromthe admitted facts it cannot be said that 4 meetings were conducted infinancial year and hence, there is no reason for causing interference inthe impugned order.5.Though it is sought to be contended now by the petitionerthat she was not issued notice by BDO as well as CEO for the purpose ofwhile conducting enquiry but the record indicates that the earlier orderpassed by the Collector was challenged in Writ Petition No. 15269 of2023. This Court by order dated 21st December, 2023 has set aside thesaid order passed by Collector and remanded back the matter to theCollector directing him to consider the explanation given by thepetitioner and thereupon to pass appropriate order. This order has notbeen challenged by either side and as such attained finality. The Collectorwas therefore required to consider the explanation submitted by thepetitioner before passing any order. The contention of non issuance ofnotice by BDO/Dy CEO sought to be raised cannot be allowed to beagitated now. Only question arises herein is as to whether the Collectorhas taken into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner960.wp11920.24.odt4 of 6 for not conducting the Gram Sabha/monthly meetings and the order issustainable or not in the eyes of law.6.Perusal of the impugned order shows that the record wasverified and the report submitted by the BDO as well as Deputy CEO, ZP,Nanded was considered. The details of the monthly meetings and GramSabhas conducted by the petitioner is also duly recorded therein. Therecord indicates that there was no meeting held in November, 2022 ofmonthly meeting so also Gram Sabha. In fact the petitioner has madestatement and claimed that she has conducted 8 Gram Sabhas from11/06/2021 to 18/10/2022 and therefore there is compliance of Section7 of the Act. This contention of the petitioner needs to be consideredview of Section 7 read with relevant rules. Section 7 mandates at least 4meetings of Gram Sabha every financial year and non convening 4meetings would render disqualification for continuing Sarpanch. GramSabha meeting Rules, 1959, Rule 3(1) requires first meeting to be heldwithin two months in every financial year and one meeting in month ofNovember. Similarly, as per Rule 3(2) Gram Sabha shall be ordinarilyheld in month of August and 26th January. Thus, even if the contention ofthe petitioner is accepted to be proved, that does not meet with therequirements of Section 7 of the Act read with the relevant rules.960.wp11920.24.odt5 of 6 7.Apart from this, in respect of monthly meeting which wasadjourned in December, 2022 was not conducted again, as required byMaharashtra Village Panchayat Meeting Rules, 1959. It is thereforeamounts to non conducting of the meeting and resultantly becomedisqualification under Section 36 of the Act.8.Though the Collector could not have disqualified thepetitioner as a Sarpanch for not conducting of meeting of March, 2023,however, there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the 4Gram Sabhas were not held in financial year April 2021 to March, 2022.In view of the case of the petitioner herself, no further evidence wasrequired to be brought on record in order to disqualify her.9.Having regard to the nature of the provisions of Sections 7and 36 of the Act which mandate conducting of minimum Gram Sabhaand monthly meetings, the order of disqualification of the petitionercannot be entertained. Hence, petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp960.wp11920.24.odt6 of 6