L.P.A.No.162 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.162 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9994 OF 2010 Sow.Kamal Bhanudas Londhe .. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for appellant Mr R.P.Phatke, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2 Mr P.R.Patil, Advocate holding for Mr M.A.Thorbole, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI DATE : 25th April 2011 PER COURT 1. This letters patent appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Single Judge confirming the order passed by respondent No.2, the Additional Collector, Osmanabad. The grievance of the appellant, who has been elected and appointed as Sarpanch is that both, the Collector and the learned Single Judge had widened the scope of the enquiry under Section 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). L.P.A.No.162 of 2011 2 2. The appellant was elected as Sarpanch in November 2007. A complaint was filed by respondent No.4 under Section 7 of the Act contending that the appellant had not held the meetings of the Gramsabha from 2nd October 2001 to 18th June 2008. 3. Under Section 7 of the Act, a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch suffers disqualification for holding the post, if at least six meetings of the Gramsabha are not held within a particular financial year. According to the appellant she had held meetings after she was elected, on 27.1.2008 and 8.3.2008 in the financial year 2007-2008 and then on 1.7.2008, 15.8.2008, 2.10.2008, 23.11.2008 in the financial year 2008-2009 and thereafter 23.5.2009, 24.5.2009, 10.6.2009, 17.7.2009, 15.8.2009, 12.10.2009, 26.12.2009 in the financial year 2009-2010. It is in these circumstances the appellant contends that the findings of the Collector and learned Single Judge are erroneous. 4. We have perused the copies of the orders passed by both, the Collector and the learned Single Judge. The complaint filed by respondent No.4 was in respect of the failure to hold meetings during a particular period, ending on 18.6.2008. The appellant thus had to meet this case. We find that the Collector has clubbed several financial years together while considering whether the Gramsabha meetings were held. This is not the scope of the enquiry under Section 7 of the Act, as it is L.P.A.No.162 of 2011 3 only if the number of meetings specified therein are not held in a particular financial year, the Sarpanch would be liable to be disqualified. The Collector has to consider whether there was sufficient cause for not holding the specified number of meetings within that financial year. Unfortunately, in then present case the Collector has widened the scope of the enquiry and considered whether the meetings were held beyond the financial year. Apart from this, assuming no meetings were held, it was necessary for the Collector to consider whether there was sufficient cause for not holding the meetings within the financial year. If indeed it is the contention of the appellant that meetings were held, then it was necessary for the Collector to ascertain from the record available whether the meetings were held, as mentioned by the appellant. Assuming the minutes were recorded by the Gramsevak on some other date and the meetings were in fact held, the appellant would perhaps, prima facie, not be liable for disqualification. 5. In these circumstances, we remand the matter to the Collector. The Collector, after affording appropriate hearing to the appellant, in accordance with the observations of this Court in the case of Suvarna Prakash Patil vs. Anil Hindurao Powar and ors, reported in 2004 (1) Mh.L.J.1062, shall decide the proceedings. Although these observations have been made in respect of disqualifications incurred under Section 14 (h) and 16 of the Act, the same principles would apply when the Collector L.P.A.No.162 of 2011 4 exercises his power under Section 7 of the Act. The Collector is directed to complete the enquiry within six weeks from today. Till then the seat will not be declared vacant. 6. With these directions appeal disposed of. ( M.T. JOSHI, J. ) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. ) (vvr/162.11lpa)