wp3486.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.3486/2011 Mohd. Ijjatulla Haji Inayatulla -vs- State of Maharashtra and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. D. Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms T. Khan, learned AGP for the R-1 & 2. Shri P.C.Madkholkar, learned counsel for the R-5. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 26/07/2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order 23/06/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for State of Rural Development, by which order the Appeal filed by the respondent No.5 herein came to be allowed and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner came to be set aside. The petitioner herein was the complainant against the respondent No.5 herein, who is the Sarpanch. The said complaint was filed for removal of the petitioner as Sarpanch by invoking Section 39 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 inter alia on the ground that the respondent No.5, Sarpanch has committed default in the matter of recovery of tax, which was to be done to the extent of 70%, non registration of the houses belonging to husband and wife, not wp3486.11.odt 2/4 consulting the members of the Gram Panchayat, not depositing 5% of the mount in the village fund out of the amount saved whilst carrying out the works and not holding the Gram Sabha meetings. The said application filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner came to be allowed by the order dated 10/03/2011. The Divisional Commissioner prior thereto had called for the report of the Chief Executive Officer, who had accordingly submitted his report dated 26/11/2010. The Chief Executive Officer has reported that the tax has not been collected to the extent contemplated by the Government Resolution. In so far as the meetings of the Gram Sabha are concerned, the Chief Executive Officer has reported that there is a doubt as regards whether the meetings were in fact held or not. The Commissioner as indicated above has by his order dated 10/03/2011 allowed the said application, wherein he has held that in so far as allegations covered by Item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are concerned, which have been culled out in the said order, the respondent No.5 and the Gram Sevak were responsible. In so far as Item No.5 is concerned, the respondent No.5 was responsible and in so far as Item Nos.7 and 8 are concerned, the Gram Sevak was responsible and in so far as Item No.9 is concerned, the non-applicant No.2 in the said application was responsible. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner disqualifying him, the respondent No.5 along with a member Abdul Wahid, who was also disqualified, filed wp3486.11.odt 3/4 an Appeal before the Hon’ble Minister for State of Rural Development, who by the order dated 23/06/2011 has allowed the said Appeal filed by the respondent No.5 and thereby set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The Appellate Authority, on the basis of the material that was before it, has recorded a finding that the allegations made against the respondent-Sarpanch were bordering on technical flaws and it was for the Gram Sevak to apprise the Sarpanch of the Government Resolutions, etc. so that they could be complied with the Gram Panchayat. The Appellate Authority has further held that for the said technical flaws in administering the Gram Panchayat, the respondent No.5, Sarpanch could not be held responsible. As indicated above the said Appeal came to be allowed and the order of disqualifying the respondent No.5 came to be set aside. It is sought to be contended by Shri S.D. Chopde, the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 7 and Rule 3 of the Bombay Village Gram Panchayats (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the Sarpanch to hold the meetings of the Gram Sabha as postulated in the said Rules, it cannot be gainsaid that the Gram Sabha meetings have to be held. However, the instant case is not a case where the meetings were not at all held, the meetings were in fact held, but as even admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no quorum that in my view would impinge wp3486.11.odt 4/4 upon the validity of the meetings and not bring home the charge against the respondent No.5 that no meetings of the Gram Sabha were held. As rightly pointed out by Shri Madkholkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, in terms of Rule 7 the power as to whether the meetings were held or not and their validity is conferred on the Collector and the Commissioner cannot go into the said aspect. The Appellate Authority having considered the matter in all its perspective and having arrived at the conclusion that the allegations against the respondent No.5 can be said to be technical. In my view, the said finding does not merit any interdiction at the hands of this Court in the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE