( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2023 OF 2010 Latabai w/o Vijay Patange, R/o Village Patnoor, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Additional Collector, Nanded. 3. Gram Sevak, Grampanchayat Patnoor, Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded. 4. Uttamrao s/o Kishanrao Korbanwad, R/o Village Patnoor, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded. 5. Apparao s/o Panduji Kokate, R/o Village Patnoor, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. M.V. Ghatge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. P.G. Rodge, advocate for the respondent No. 3. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the respondents No. 4 and 5. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd June, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent ( 2 ) of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 18th January, 2010, rendered by learned Additional Collector, Nanded. By that order, the petitioner was held disqualified to continue as Sarpanch of village panchayat, Patnoor, Taluka Ardhapur, under provisions of section 7 read with section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the village somewhere in March, 2006. She was required to take six (6) Gram Sabhas (village meetings) and twelve (12) monthly meetings. A complaint was made by the respondents No. 4 and 5 to the Additional Collector, Nanded, alleging failure of the petitioner to call for the monthly meetings and the Gram Sabhas as contemplated under section 7 and section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, “the BVP Act”). They alleged that she had not called any monthly meeting as well as Gram Sabha during the period of about twenty (20) months after assuming the charge of her office as Sarpanch. They submitted that the monthly meetings were also not held in accordance with the requirement of law, particularly a meeting dated 14th August, 2008 was alleged to ( 3 ) have been held, but a bogus record of such meeting and passing of resolution No. 6 for construction of a cultural hall was drawn up. They submitted that the petitioner had become ineligible to continue as Sarpanch. The petitioner, however, denied all the material allegations made against her. She contended that there was necessary compliance of the law and the required number of Gram Sabhas and monthly meetings were held. She, therefore, urged that she may not be declared as disqualified person to continue in the office as Sarpanch. The learned Additional Collector perused the relevant record and the report of the Gram Sevak of the Village Panchayat. The learned Additional Collector held that for the year 2006-2007 and for the year 2007-2008, the petitioner failed to conduct one Gram Sabha and one monthly meeting, respectively, for which there was no justification given by her. The Additional Collector further held that there was no proper record appearing from the register of the monthly meetings that four (4) of the members of the Village Panchayat were served with the notices though rest of the five (5) were served with due notice. He held that the meetings were held without following rules 4 and 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959. On these premises, the petitioner was declared to be disqualified to remain as Sarpanch and it was directed that ( 4 ) she would be disqualified to contest the election for the remaining period. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 5. At the outset, it is pertinent to notice that the complaint application presented to the Additional Collector by the respondents No. 4 and 5 does not show any material to infer that they objected legality of the monthly meetings due to non-services of the notices on themselves and other two (2) members. It is also pertinent to notice that the report of Gram Sevak of the village was obtained by the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector considered the said report dated 8th June, 2009 which shows that in the year 2006-2007, six (6) Gram Sabhas and twelve (12) monthly meetings were held and so also, similar number of Gram Sabhas and monthly meetings were held in the next year i.e. 2007-2008. The report also showed due compliance of the requirement of section 7 for the year 2008-2009. The impugned order does not show that the learned Additional Collector discarded the said report for any particular reason. It appears that without ascribing any tangible reason, the part of the report of the ( 5 ) Gram Sevak was discarded by the learned Additional Collector. The learned Additional Collector did not obtain any explanation from the Gram Sevak as to how, for the year 2006-2007, he reported that there were six (6) Gram Sabhas and twelve (12) monthly meetings held though one Gram Sabha and one monthly meeting was held less than the required number. Secondly, for the year 2006-2007, the petitioner could not get the entire period of twelve (12) months to officiate in the post of Sarpanch. It appears that she assumed the charge of office somewhere in the month of March, 2006 and the first mothly meeting was held on 19th April, 2006. Thus, for period between January and end of March, 2006, the petitioner could not have arranged any Gram Sabha or the monthly meeting. That period ought to have been excluded from the counting because the requirement shows that six (6) Gram Sabhas and twelve (12) monthly meetings are required to be held in a year. The monthly meetings could not be held for the period in which the petitioner was not in the office prior to her election as Sarpanch. This aspect is overlooked by the learned Additional Collector. Suffice it to say that there was substantial compliance made by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner seems to have held six (6) Gram ( 6 ) Sabhas as enumerated in the chart which is re-produced by the learned Additional Collector in paragraph No. 2 in his judgement for the year 2007-2008. Thus, there is due compliance to the extent of number of Gram Sabhas, but the learned Additional Collector reached conclusion that there was non-compliance because of holding only eleven (11) monthly meetings instead of twelve (12). The petitioner was not confronted with such information and her explanation was not sought by the learned Additional Collector. As stated earlier, the Gram Sevak had reported that for the year 2007-2008, there were six (6) Gram Sabhas and twelve (12) monthly meetings held. The learned Additional Collector did not ask the Gram Sevak to explain the deficiency which he seems to have noticed on perusal of the record. The learned Additional Collector does not also say that report of the Gram Sevak is untrue. The observations of the learned Additional Collector are, therefore, inconsistent and rather inexplicable . Since there was no allegation in the complaint application that four (4) members of the Village Panchayat were not served with any notice of the monthly meetings, the disqualification on such ground is also improper and incorrect. Considering the reasons discussed hereinbefore, it will have to be said that the impugned order is improper and unsustainable. ( 7 ) 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp2023-10