1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4900 OF 2009 Rajendra Vasantrao Konde ... Petitioner v/s The Circle Officer, Panchayat Samiti & ors. ... Respondents Mr. A. V. Anturkar i/by Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. For the State. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the respondent No.2. By this order the petitioner has been declared disqualified since he was absent for more than six occasions when the meetings were held of the Panchayat Samiti. 2. The petitioner was elected as the Deputy Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. It appears that he did not attend the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti on various occasions. After 2 receipt of a complaint, the Divisional Commissioner i.e. the respondent No.2 herein issued a notice to the petitioner as is required under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified as a Member of the Panchayat Samiti and consequently as its Deputy Chairman. The notice was issued to him on 7.3.2009 indicating that a hearing would be held before the respondent No.2 on 9.3.2009. 3. According to the petitioner, he was arrested and was in jail on 7.3.2009. He was released on bail only after the order of this Court on 31.3.2009 due to which he could not attend the enquiry before the respondent No.2. 4. An affidavit has been filed by the Block Development Officer, conceding that the notice dated 26.2.2009 informing the petitioner of the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent No.2 on 9.3.2009, was served to the petitioner in the office of the Yervada jail on 7.3.2009. Admittedly, the petitioner was released on bail only after the order of this Court on 31.3.2009. In these circumstances, although the petitioner was served with the notice on 7.3.2009, it was impossible for him to remain present before the Divisional Commissioner for the hearing which was slated to be held on 9.3.2009. 5. Before a person can be disqualified as a Member of the 3 Panchayat Samiti, a hearing must be afforded to him as required under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. This is because the disqualification of a person would attract civil consequences. It is trite that such a person must be afforded a personal hearing. Such a hearing must not be an empty formality as has happened in the present case. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. 7. The petitioner shall attend the office of the Divisional Commissioner for the hearing on 9.7.2009 at 11.00 a.m. 8. The Divisional Commissioner shall dispose of the proceedings within two weeks from the date the petitioner appears before him i.e. from 9.7.2009. 9. Till then the petitioner will not act as a Member or the Deputy Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. 10. The election program is stayed till the hearing of the proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner. 11. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. .....