Suvarna Vishal Desale v. The State Of Maharashtra

wp-1619-2026.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 1619 OF 2026Suvarna Vishal DesaleAge : 41 years, Occupation : Sarpanch,R/o. Kasare, Taluka Sakri,District Dhule..Petitioner VERSUS 1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Rural Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Collector, Dhule,District Dhule.3.Deputy Collector (Administration), DhuleDistrict Dhule.4.Smt. Madhuri Vijay Khairnar,R/o. Kasare, Taluka Sakri,District Dhule...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1925 OF 2026 1.Ulkesh s/o. Uttamrao Desale,Age: 48 Years, Occ.: Agril, R/o. At Post. Kasare, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule.2.Devidas s/o. Vishnu Desale,Age: 60 Years, Occ.: Agril, R/o. At Post. Kasare, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule...ApplicantsVersus1.Smt. Suvarna Vishal Desale,Age: 41 Years, Occ.: Household, R/o. At Post. Kasare, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule. wp-1619-2026.odt(2)2.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.3.The Collector, Dhule,Dist. Dhule.4.The Deputy Collector (Administration),Dhule, Dist. Dhule.5.Smt. Madhuri Vijay Khairnar,Age: Major, Occu.: Household, R/o. At Post. Kasare, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule...Respondents... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Sr. Counsel i/b Mr.G.N. Tirthkar AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.D. GhayalAdvocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Mukul KulkarniAdvocate for Applicant/Intervenor : Mr. A.A. Khande... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : MARCH 30, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 20, 2026JUDGMENT :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finallywith consent of parties.2.Present petition takes exception to order dated23.01.2026 passed by District Collector, Dhule/respondent no.2whereby petitioner is disqualified to hold post of Sarpanch in terms ofSection 7 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat, 1959. The petitioner wasdirectly elected as Sarpanch of Village Kasare Taluka. Sakri District wp-1619-2026.odt(3)Dhule in general elections for term 2022 to 2027. The respondentno.4 made a complaint dated 30.06.2025 to District Collector allegingthat petitioner failed to convene mandatory Gram Sabha meetings,hence, incurred disqualification. On 25.09.2025, petitioner wasserved with notice of disqualification proceeding in Application No.24of 2025. The petitioner was called upon to remain present on17.05.2025 before District Collector. On that day, she personallyappeared. On next date of hearing, she appeared through anadvocate. The Collector called a report from Block DevelopmentOfficer as regards to allegations in complaint. On 16.09.2025, theDistrict Collector passed order of disqualification relying upon reportof Block Development Officer. 3.Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned senior advocate appearing forpetitioner submits that petitioner was not served with copy ofcomplaint or annexures thereto. The notice of dispute applicationserved upon petitioner does not disclose whether proceedings wereunder Section 7, Section 14 or any other disqualification provisionnor it specify about default pertaining to non-holding of Gram Sabhameetings. The petitioner submitted her detailed reply to disputeapplication and categorically denied all allegations made in complaintthereby reserving her right to file detailed reply. Lastly, hearing wasconducted through video conferencing. The petitioner’s advocatejoined proceedings through video conferencing as directed by wp-1619-2026.odt(4)Collector, however, he was not permitted to complete his submissionand abruptly hearing was closed. As such, petitioner was not givensufficient opportunity of hearing. The impugned order is in grossviolation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. 4.Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned senior advocate wouldfurther submit that the District Collector did not consider that duringMarch-2024 to June-2024 and again between October-2024 toNovember-2024, the model code of conduct for parliamentary andassembly elections was enforced. During this period, Gram Sevakexpressly advised not to convene Gram Sabha meeting and prepared abogus manipulated notice dated 05.04.2024 and 04.11.2024 to showthat he had instructed petitioner to conduct such meeting. In supportof his contention, Mr. Katneshwarkar relies upon law laid down bythis Court in following judgments :1.Pratibha w/o Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector,Latur and Others reported in 2010 (5) Mh.L.J. 47.2.Baburao Vishwanath Mathpati Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Others reported in 1996 (1) Mh.L.J. 366.3.Bhagat Ram Patanga Vs. The State of Punjabreported in (1972) SCC 170.4.Shri Manohar Dnyaneshwar Pote Vs. The Collector,Jalna and Others in Writ Petition No.9427 of 2022 decidedon 24.02.2023.5.Vilas Sanjay Pawar Vs. Pandharinath TukaramKotsulwar reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 316. wp-1619-2026.odt(5)6.Shubhangi Anil Gawande and Another Vs. AdditionalCollector, Amravati and Others reported in 2010 (2)Mh.L.J. 368.7.Gangabai Vithal Bade Vs. State of Maharashtra andOthers reported in 2013 (2) Mh.L.J. 469.5.Per contra, Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned advocateappearing for respondent no.4, Mr. A.A. Khande, learned advocateappearing for applicant/intervenor and Mr. S.D. Ghayal, learned AGPappearing for respondent/State supports impugned order. Mr. MukulKulkarni relies upon observations of this Court in case of ShobhabaiDevidas Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ PetitionNo.4807/2020 decided on 02.12.2021 and Pralhad Bhikaji BarkadeVs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2016) 6 All MR 721.6.Having considered submissions advanced by learnedadvocates appearing for respective parties, two important points areposed for consideration of this Court. (i) Firstly, whether petitionerwas given sufficient opportunity to defend complaint/dispute therebyserving/informing charges of proposed disqualification ? (ii)Secondly, whether petitioner has incurred disqualification in terms ofSection 7 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ? So far as firstissue is concerned, undisputedly, petitioner was served with notice ofdisqualification initiated at the behest of respondent no.4. The copyof notice is placed on record of this Court at Exhibit-C. The notice isdated 25.09.2025. The subject is quoted to be Section 7 of wp-1619-2026.odt(6)Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The petitioner was calledupon to remain present on 07.10.2025 for hearing before DistrictCollector. It appears that petitioner had personally appeared beforeCollector. On 04.11.2025, she submitted her reply stipulating that shehad not received copy of complaint, however, from para 6 onwards,she took a defence that she was not permitted to participate in inquiryconducted by Block Development Officer or Chief Executive Officer.In para 8, she stipulates that there is no evidence to indicate that shefailed to conduct meetings of Gram Sabha without good reasons. Shedenied her own statement recorded before Block Development Officerand objected contents of report. After typewritten portion in reply,handwritten portion is added stating that she has conducted GramSabha as contemplated under law. 7.The roznama of proceeding before District Collectordepicts that on 07.10.2025, both parties were present beforeCollector. The respondent no.4 filed his written submissions whereaspetitioner had sought time for the same. On 14.10.2025, matter wasadjourned as District Collector was busy and posted on 04.11.2025.On that day, hearing was conducted on video conferencing. Perusal ofimpugned order depicts that petitioner’s defence that she conductedmeetings as contemplated under Act has been considered and rejectedon the basis of report submitted by Block Development Officer as wellas record submitted by Village Development Officer, which shows that wp-1619-2026.odt(7)petitioner was intimated by Village Development Officer about herobligation to conduct Gram Sabha during 1st April, 2024 to 31st May,2024. However, she put remark that Gram Sabha can be conductedon expiry of code of conduct of parliamentary elections. Similarcommunication is given in respect of Gram Sabha to be conducted inNovember-2024, January-2024 and April-May 2025. At bothoccasions, petitioner did not respond to Village Development Officerand advised him to fix date only after she tells him.8.Section 7 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959prescribes for meetings of Gram Sabha and disqualification tocontinue as Sarpanch if Gram Sabha is not conducted withoutsufficient cause. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 along with secondproviso is produced herewith for ready reference :“(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 shall bedisqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may be,Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder ofthe term of office of the members [of the panchayat; and theSecretary of the panchayat shall also if, prima facie, foundresponsible of any lapse in convening such meeting, be liable tobe suspended, and for being proceeded against, for such otherdisciplinary action as provided under the relevant rules.] Thedecision of the Collector on the question whether or not therewas such sufficient cause shall be final]: wp-1619-2026.odt(8)[Provided further that, a period of not more than [four months]shall be allowed to elapse between the two meetings of the GramSabha:”9.The careful consideration of record depicts that petitionerfailed to conduct four Gram Sabha in terms of Section 7(1) ofMaharashtra Village Panchayat Act. During 2024 to 2025 (April-May2024, November 2024, January 2025 and May 2025). The recordfurther indicates that petitioner was served with notice ofdisqualification proceeding under Section 7 of Maharashtra VillagePanchayat Act, 1959. As such, she cannot say that she was not awareabout disqualification alleged against her. Further, she filed a replybefore District Collector wherein she complained that she was notserved with complaint or report of Block Development Officer.Pertinently, she refers to contents of report of Block DevelopmentOfficer. The report of Block Development Officer shows thatpetitioner’s statement was recorded during course of inquiry andultimately, there is no explanation even before this Court for non-conduct of mandatory Gram Sabha. 10.At this stage, although Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned senioradvocate appearing for petitioner heavily relied upon observations ofthis Court in case of Sunil Daulat Patil (supra) and Pratibha SanjayHulle (supra), this Court finds that once petitioner was aware aboutdisqualification proceeding initiated against her in terms of Section 7of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act and, in pursuance to service of wp-1619-2026.odt(9)notice, she caused her appearance and tendered her reply and afterengaging an advocate participated in final hearing but failed toprovide explanation for non-conduct of four Gram Sabha during theyear 2024-2025, she cannot succeed to avoid disqualification arisingout of her failure. 11.The record indicates that when Collector solicited reportfrom Block Development Officer, statement of petitioner was recordedwhere she could not provide sufficient reasons explaining failure toconduct four Gram Sabha. It is trite that Section 7 of MaharashtraVillage Panchayat Act aims to bring participation of villagers inworking of Gram Sabha. The democratic principles are sought to beinculcate in functioning of Gram Sabha. The Sarpanch or in hisabsence Upa-sarpanch, so also Village Development Officer aremandated to conduct four Gram Sabha within a financial yearwithout gap of more than four months in two consecutive meetings.The failure to observe mandate of Section 7 would brings penalty ofdisqualification against Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch, as the case maybe. 12.In this backdrop, although it is expected that Sarpanchand Upa-sarpanch is served with imputations/charges indisqualification proceeding, once it is brought on record that chargesor default was within knowledge of Sarpanch and sufficientopportunity was provided to him/her to explain default, there is no wp-1619-2026.odt(10)reason to give leverage in favour of defaulter Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch to avoid statutory consequences for technical reasons. Inthis backdrop, disqualification order passed by District Collector needsno interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court.13.Hence, writ petition stands rejected.14.Rule is discharged.15.Civil Application No.1925 of 2026 stands disposed of.(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)Mujaheed//