NAMDEO RAGHO AROTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order of the Collector of Nasik dated July 13, 1978 purporting to have been passed under S. 41 (1) of the Bombay Village Pan-chayats Act, 1958, suspending the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat of Agashkhinde, taluka Sinnar, district Nasik. In the absence of any affidavit in reply being filed, the undisputed facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these. There is a village pan-chayat for Agashkhinde village in the Sinnar taluka of the Nasik district constituted under the Bombay Village Pan-chayats Act, 1958. There are three wards in this village. There are ten members elected to the respondent No. 3 Panchayat, out of whom two belonged to the Scheduled Tribes, three belonged to the Harijan community and the remaining five belonged to the other communities. There is a constant rivalry between two groups -- one group consisting of the Harijans and the other group consisting of all the other communities put together. The petitioner has been a member of respondent No. 3 Panchayat since the year 1971. He was the Sarpanch in 1971-72 for about nine months. In January, 1978, because of the steps taken by the petitioner, the then Sarpanch and the Deputy Sarpanch, both of whom belonged to the Harijan community, were dislodged from their respective offices as a result of a vote of no confidence. Thereafter the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. In April, 1978. fresh elections were held. After the elections, elections were held for the offices of the Sarpanch and the Deputy Sarpanch, and they being contested between the two groups, the petitioner succeeded in being re-elected as the Sarpanch.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that having regard to the long standing rivalry between the Harijan group on the one side and the other group of the panchayat on the other, and the fact that the petitioner was responsible for dislodging in January, 1978. the Harijan Sarpanch and Upasarpanch by getting the Panchayat to pass a no confidence motion against them, the Harijan community, including the elected members of the Panchayat, are out to take revenge against him. It is further his version that one Chaitram Pimple, Gram Sevak of respondent No. 3, who is also a Harijan is hostile to the petitioner and it is his complaint, that the Harijan members of the Panchayat and the said Gram Sevak have together conspired to dislodge him from the office of the Sarpanch to which he was elected in April, 1978.

(3.) It is as against that background, complains the petitioner, that in about March, 1978, one Hari Bapu Tribhavane lodged a complaint against the petitioner and one Malhari Barkale, alleging inter alia that when the complainant had been to the hotel to purchase Beedi, the petitioner and the said Barkale abused the complainant. The second complaint was lodged against the petitioner on 9th May, 1978 by the Gram Sevak of respondent No. 3, wherein the said Gram Sevak alleged that on or about 4th Oct. 1977, during the meeting of respondent No. 3 Panchayat the petitioner abused him. After receipt of these complaints, it appears that the Police Sub Inspector, Sinnar, by his letter dated July, 11, 1978 reported to the Collector that two criminal cases had been launched against the petitioner and that charge-sheets had been sent to the Court on March 9, 1978 and May 6, 1978 respectively under Section 7 of the Defence of India Act. The petitioner's grievance is that the sole object of the said false complaints was to dislodge him from the office of the Sarpanch of respondent No. 3 Village Panchayat. It further appears that on receipt of the said report, the Collector passed the impugned order on July 13, 1978 in purported exercise of the powers under Section 41(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, suspending the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch till the decision of the cases launched against him. It is the petitioner's grievance that the said order was passed without giving him an opportunity or without issuing a show cause notice to him. He, therefore, contends that the order is passed in exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in the Collector and that the Collector acted with material irregularity in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice without applying his mind and without giving, any opportunity to the petitioner. The order is also challenged on the ground that S. 41 (1) of the Act is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.