WANDANA RAMKRUSHNA NESKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally by consent of parties. Advocate for petitioner points out that in order dated 3.8.2007 the Additional Collector, Amravati has found that though the meeting was not held on 30.8.2006, it was shown to have been conducted on 31.8.2006 and hence there is no disqualification as required by section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.

(2.) Mrs. Deshpande, as also learned A.G.P., state that section 36 itself expressly gives finality to finding of Additional Collector only on the aspect of sufficient cause. Both of them urged that Additional Collector in present matter has not recorded any such finding and the conclusion recorded by him that meeting was held on 31.8.2006 was quashed in Revision under section 155. The revisional authority after verification of record has found that there was no such meeting conducted even on 31.8.2006.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties I find that section 36 deals with disqualification of a Sarpanch as Sarpanch and also disables him from becoming Sarpanch for remainder of the term of Gram Panchayat. Thus Sarpanch who is found responsible for not conducting the meeting will cease to be Sarpanch and not as a member of Gram Panchayat. In present facts therefore, respondent no.1 could not have removed petitioner from the post of Member of Gram Panchayat. Order to that effect and to that extent is therefore, unsustainable.