ALPANA GANESH PATIL Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned Judgment and Order dtd. 11/4/2023 passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai. By the impugned judgment dtd. 11/4/2023, the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, has directed that, apart from the Sarpanch of the said village, an offence be registered against the Petitioner for her act of forgery in the original record of the Grampanchayat Pam, Taluka and District Palghar, i.e. Government record. The said direction is in paragraph No.1 of the operative part of impugned Judgment and Order.

(2.) Heard Ms. Chitnis, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Kamble, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Ms. Thakur, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.3 & 6. Perused entire record.

(3.) The record indicates that, a complaint was filed by Respondent No.5 against the Respondent No.4 under Sec. 39(1) of The Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, 'said Act'). During the course of enquiry, the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Navi Mumbai found that, the Petitioner, a Gramsevika of village Pam, Taluka and District Palghar had indulged into an act of forgery and/or tampering with the Government record and therefore by its impugned Judgment and Order has directed that, a crime be registered against the Petitioner being Gramsevak and Sarpanch of the said village.