1 wp2440.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2440 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Salunke with B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2011 1. Heard Advocate Mr. N.P. Patil-Jamalpurkar for petitioner, Advocate Mr. V.D. Salunke for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. It is not in dispute that today the petitioner is not in the office and the Deputy Sarpanch is exercising those powers. 3. After hearing respective parties, I am not inclined to reinstate the petitioner back to the office at this stage. The contention that the report of enquiry conducted by 2 wp2440.11 the Block Development Officer has not been made available to petitioner appears to be correct. Advocate Mr. Salunke for respondent nos. 3 and 4 also states that the said report has also not been supplied to respondent nos. 3 and 4 and according to him, no prejudice is caused to parties because of non-supply of that reply. Learned A.G.P. is also supporting the arguments of Advocate Mr. Salunke. However, one of the finding is, the meeting dated 26.01.2010 has not been held. According to Advocate Mr. Patil that meeting has been adjourned and has been held on 1st February, 2010. He invites attention to the proceedings written on 26.01.2010 for the said purpose. 4. Advocate Mr. Salunke points out that there was no such defence in reply filed before the Collector and this contention could have been raised before the Collector even in absence of supply of report as the grievance was very much made in the complaint as filed. He also points out that the meeting which ought to have been held in the month of November, 2010 has also not been conducted. According to him, in reply the petitioner has only tried to put blame upon the Upsarpanch and in alternate upon Gram Sevak. 5. Perusal of provisions of Section 7 reveals that minimum six meetings are required to be held in a financial year. Perusal of the impugned order shows that 3 wp2440.11 in financial year 2009-2010, seven meetings have been held to be conducted. The authority thereafter has made reference to Rule to note that the first meeting of Gram Sabha must be within a period of two months of financial year and then second meeting must be in the month of November. It is also noted that thereafter and subject to Section 7, there must be two additional meetings in the month of August and on 26th January. 6. I am not concluding this aspect but as I find that the report on which the reliance is being placed itself mentions that the meeting to be held on 26.01.2010 was adjourned and then next meeting is shown on 01.02.2010, the question arises whether 01.02.2010 is independent meeting or a meeting which was adjourned on 26.01.2010. 7. In view of this position, I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity before the Collector to clarify his defence. Only for that purpose, the impugned order dated 10th March, 2011 in Case No. 2010/BVP/CR/496 is quashed and set aside. However, it is with express understanding that only if explanation of the petitioner is accepted and she is exonerated of the charge, she will be reinstated back to the office of Sarpanch. 8. It is made clear that because of the consideration and application of mind by the authority in respect of 4 wp2440.11 alleged not holding of meetings of Gram Sabha, the rival arguments about holding or not holding of monthly meetings are not expressly evaluated by me and that question is kept open for consideration by the respondent no.2-Additional Collector after giving parties an opportunity to meet the report of Block Development Officer. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 25th April, 2011 and the Additional Collector shall attempt to decide the said proceedings as early as possible and in any case by 30.06.2011. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2440.11