1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3228 OF 2011. Abdul Wajid Abdul Jalil. .Vrs. State of Maharashtra, thr. its Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. P.C.Madkholkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. D. Chopde,Advocate for respondent No.4.) -0-0- CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 11 th July, 2011. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 23/06/2011 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Rural Development, Government of Maharashtra by which, the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, order under Section 39 (k) (3) of the Bombay Village and Panchayat Act, came to be confirmed and the petitioner came to be disqualified from the membership of the Gram Panchyat. The said proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the Sarpanch of Village Mana, one 2 Mandatai Suresh Gedam. In so far as the Sarpanch is concerned, she was disqualified on the basis of the six charges which were levelled against her. However, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the Divisional Commissioner, held against the petitioner mainly on two grounds namely; that the petitioner was instrumental in allotting shop to his son-in-law and in the riot which had taken place on 04th June, 2010, some arms were found in the said shop, on the basis of which the Divisional Commissioner came to a conclusion that the Member i.e. the petitioner had misused his position. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 10.03.2011, the petitioner and the said Sarpanch Mantadai Gedam filed a joint Appeal before the State Government. The said Appeal, in so far as the Sarpanch Mandatai was concerned, was allowed and she was exonerated from the six charges which were levelled against her. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the appellate authority came to a conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner was ‘disgraceful’ which would come within the ambit of Section 39 of the Said Act. Hence in so far as the present petitioner is 3 concerned, the said appeal came to be dismissed. On behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel Shri. P.C.Madkholar, would contend that a composite proceeding against the Sarpanch, and the Member of the Grampanchayat, could not be tried as authorities to try the same are different, in so far as the disqualification of a Member is concerned the same is to be tried under Section 16 (2) of the Grampanchayat Act by the Collector and in so far as the Sarpanch is concerned the disqualification is under Section 39 of the B.V.P. Act which is to be tried by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel would then contend that the orders are also bereft of any reasons. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court P.No.1785 (The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vrs. The Union of India and another), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that every quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Counsel Mr Chopde, appearing for respondent No.4 herein that it is the petitioner who was instrumental in 4 allotting the shop in question to his son -in- law. It was further submitted by Shri Chopde, that Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 has a wide amplitude and would cover even a Member and therefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in so far as the lack of jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner is concerned is mis-founded. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my view the petition is bereft of any merit. In so far as the joint proceedings which were conducted against the Sarpanch and the petitioner, who is the Member of the Gram Panchayat, Mana is concerned. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner acquiesced in the proceedings conducted by the Divisional Commissioner as the record does not disclose that the petitioner has taken any objection. Thereafter, the petitioner even filed an Appeal, pertinently, no such ground raising an objection in respect of the jurisdiction exercised by the Divisional Commissioner was taken. In view of the aforesaid it would have to be held that the petitioner has acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Divisional Commissioner. It is also required to be noted that Section 39 of the B. V. P. Act also 5 encompasses within itself a Member. The said power under Section 39 of the Bombay Village Grampanchayat Act, therefore can be said to be an additional power which is vested with the Authority, apart from the powers under section 16 of the said Act which can be exercised for any of the disqualifications as contemplated under Section 14. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction in respect of the petitioner would have to be rejected for the said reason also. In so far as the order passed by the appellate authority, it is pertinent to note that the appellate authority was trying a proceeding both in respect of the Sarpanch Mandatai Gedam as also the petitioner. In so far as the petitioner is concerned the Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding that the shop has been allotted to the son-in-law of the petitioner and that arms were found in the said shop when riots had taken place on 04.06.2010. In my view the order passed in the instant case by the appellate authority cannot be said to be bereft of any reasons. Once having come to a conclusion that the Commissioner had the power under Section 39 of the 6 Act the necessary corollary of the same would be that he would have the power to declare that a vacancy has arisen. Having considered the order passed by State Government, in my view though the conclusion in respect of the petitioner is different from the conclusion recorded by the Divisional Commissioner, namely that the Divisional Commissioner concluded that the petitioner has misused his position whereas the Hon'ble Minister held that it amounts to disgraceful conduct, the same would make no material difference as both the authorities have arrived at the said conclusion which can be said to impinge on the conduct of the petitioner as a Member. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE scd//