RANI SHAHAJI SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.

(2.) The petitioners were the duly elected members of the Village Panchayat. They were elected in the month of January 2021. Petitioner no.1 was elected as Sarpanch. Respondent no.7 is the husband of the contested candidate against the panel of petitioners. He had a political rivalry; hence, he made the false complaints against them. On his complaint, an inquiry under Sec. 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ('Act of 1959' for short) was initiated. Respondent no.7 alleged against the petitioners that they by misusing the powers prepared a bogus and duplicate Resolution No.5 dtd. 18/11/2021. They have forged the proceeding book and passed the illegal resolution that complainant obstructed way to the field of villagers and referred it to the Tahasildar. However, the said subject was not in Resolution No.5. The Gram Sevak informed him by letter dtd. 28/3/2022 that the Village Panchayat has not passed a resolution about road Kapilapuri to Ainapurwadi or of Gut No.21 and 22. The Village Panchayat had no right pass such resolution. Respondent no.4 in complaint was the husband of petitioner no.1. He interfered with the administration of the Village Panchayat. He puts the bogus signature of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 did not attend the Village Panchayat meetings. All petitioners in conspiracy were preparing the false and bogus record of the Village Panchayat. He prayed to remove the petitioners under Sec. 39 of the Act of 1959.

(3.) The Additional Commissioner followed the procedure of law and called for the report of the Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer submitted a detailed report holding that under the Act of 1959, the Sarpanch is not responsible to maintain the proceeding book. The Sarpanch and Village Panchayat members could not be held responsible for not maintaining the Village Panchayat record particularly the proceeding book. Considering the report of the Chief Executive Officer, the Additional Commissioner dismissed the complaint of respondent no.7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, respondent no.7 preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister re-appreciating the fact and the evidence, allowed the complaint of respondent no.7 and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner. He further removed all petitioners from the office of Village Panchayat as well as from the post of Sarpanch.