SHUBHANGI ANIL GAWANDE Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Division Bench of this Court on 18th February, 2008 while disposing of Letters Patent Appeal has requested this Court to decide writ petition at the earliest by giving it priority. Shri Kadu, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has pointed out said order to this Court and accordingly by passing separate orders on 22 1 2010, writ petition was directed to be listed for final hearing.

(2.) The challenge in writ petition is to the order dated 24-10-2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati, in Gram Panchayat Case No. 3/section 36/Mahuli Dhande/2006 07, Tah. : Daryapur. In that case, which started on an application under section 36 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter after referred to as the Act), filed by present respondents No. 2 and 3, the Additional Collector passed impugned order thereby disqualifying both the petitioners from continuing as Sarpanch or Upsarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahuli (Dhande). This Court has on 1-11-2007 while issuing notice, stayed that order and on 10-12-2007 while issuing rule in the matter, continued it.

(3.) Smt. Jog, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention to the provisions of section 36 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act and of meeting rules framed thereunder to urge that mere not holding of a meeting as prescribed is not a disqualification. She has urged that there has to be absence of any just and sufficient reason for not holding of meeting and when holding of meeting is thus avoided or defeated, the Legislature has contemplated disqualification of Sarpanch. Upsarpanch acts only in the absence of Sarpanch and hence until and unless there is a finding that Upsarpanch should have acted and held the meeting, for not holding any particular meeting, both Sarpanch and Upsarpanch cannot be disqualified. In this back ground, she has invited attention to the impugned order dated 24 10 2007 to show that the Additional Collector has not considered these basic ingredients of section 36 of the Act and mechanically without appreciating the factual controversy before it, has disqualified both the petitioners. Even the reason of non availability of records with Sarpanch or absence of Secretary for conduct of meeting pressed into service by the petitioners has not been looked into. According to her, writ petition needs to be allowed.