( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 774 OF 2007 Ganesh s/o Dhondiba Chavan, Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Nanegaon, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Additional Collector, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. 2. Uday s/o Vasantrao Chavan, Member, Grampanchayat, Nanegaon, Tq. Badnapur, Ditrict Jalna. 3. Vinod s/o Bhaiyasaheb Chavan, Upsarpanch, Grampanchayat, Nanegaon, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. 4. Gramsevak, The office of Grampanchayat, Nanegaon, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Amol Gandhi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondent No. 1. Mr. P.B. Patil, advocate for respondent No. 2. None for other respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st February, 2010] ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgement and order rendered by learned Additional Collector, Jalna, in file No. 2006/SaSha/GPNi/C.R.-20 whereby he is held disqualified to continue as Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Nanegaon. 2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch somewhere in the middle of November, 2005. He took charge of the office on 16th November, 2005. The respondent No. 2 filed an application before the learned Additional Collector to declare the petitioner disqualified under section 7 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on the ground that he did not hold any Gram Sabha as contemplated under section 7 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act during the relevant period. In pursuance to the said application, report of Gram Sevak was called. The record was called by the Additional Collector in order to verify the information, after giving notice to the petitioner. The parties were ( 3 ) heard. The petitioner filed his written statement on 09-10-2006. Considering the record available before him, the explanation given by the petitioner and the issue involved, the learned Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not arranged for any Gram Sabha during period between November, 2005 to 31st March, 2006, except and save one Gram Sabha which was arranged on 26th January, 2006, but that too was invalid because it was not held due to absence of large section of the villagers. The petitioner had cancelled the Gram Sabha dated 26-01-2006. He did not call for meeting of female members of the village. It was also noticed that no Gram Sabha was arranged during period April, 2006 to July, 2006. It was noticed, therefore, that in the month of August, 2006, a Gram Sabha was arranged but was suspended on 22nd August, 2006, which was recalled on 29th August, 2006. The Additional Collector further held that in November, 2006, again one Gram Sabha was called on 18th November, 2006, but was postponed to 28th November, 2006. Considering the omissions and the negligence on part of the petitioner, the Additional Collector held that the petitioner was ( 4 ) disqualified to act as Sarpanch of the village. 3. The petitioner challenged the impugned judgement and order of the learned Additional Collector mainly on the ground that the delegation of the powers in Additional Collector was improper and, therefore, he had no legal authority to decide the question pertaining to disqualification. The petitioner further asserted that there was no material to show that the monthly meetings and the Gram Sabhas were not held as contemplated under the law. He further asserted that the respondent No. 2 and his brother had disturbed the functioning of the Gram Sabhas and, therefore, he and some other members of the village panchayat were entitled to put their signatures on the proceedings of the Gram Sabha. He denied the material averments made by the respondent No. 2 and contended that the findings of the learned Additional Collector are improper. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. ( 5 ) 5. Mr. Amol Gandhi would submit that the petitioner gave satisfactory explanation about the holding of Gram Sabhas. He contended that the disqualification could not be attributed to the petitioner without proper scrutiny of the relevant record. He argued that the petitioner was working as Sarpanch since long period and now, he is likely to complete tenure within few months and, therefore, he may not be held as disqualified person. Reliance is placed on “Vilas s/o Sanjay Pawar v. Pandharinath s/o Tukaram Kotsulwar and others” 2009 (1) ALL MR 168. 6. So far as question regarding jurisdictional issue is concerned, the contention of the petitioner was that the Collector could not have delegated the powers to decide question of disqualification and, therefore, the Additional Collector had no authority to hold the enquiry and disqualify him vide the impugned judgement and order. It appears that interim relief was granted by learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Sawant) vide order dated 10-01-2008 for the ( 6 ) reason that jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to deal with the matter was in question. Mr. Patil P.B., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, invited my attention to observations in “Vimal Bhimrao Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and others” 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 546. A Division Bench of this Court held that the State Government is legally entitled to delegate appellate power in favour of any other official of the revenue department, including Additional Commissioner, by issuing appropriate notification under section 182 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The challenge to the jurisdiction of Additional Collector is squarely met in view of the above referred dictum. The delegation of the powers to the Additional Collector cannot be, therefore, a ground to challenge the impugned judgement and order. In “Kamlakar s/o Panditrao Wagh v. The State of Maharashtra and others” (Writ Petition No. 1500/2008), a Single Bench of this Court held that sub- section (4) of section 182 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act empowers to the Collector to delegate the powers to any officer not below the rank of Mamlatdar, ( 7 ) Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar or Mahalkari. This Court held that the Additional Collector is not below the rank of Mamlatdar, Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar or Mahalkari. Obviously, the delegation of powers by the Collector to do all the acts contemplated under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, by the Additional Collector instead of him, will have to be regarded as proper and valid. Needless to say, the ground for challenge to the impugned judgement and order on jurisdictional issue must fail. 7. Coming to the question of substantial compliance of section 7 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, it may be gathered that though the petitioner was Sarpanch in the middle of November, 2005, yet, till end of March, 2006, not a single Gram Sabha was arranged by him except one meeting which was scheduled on 26th January, 2006. That too was arranged haphazardly. There were only 28 villagers present at the meeting and, therefore, it had to be cancelled. The said Gram Sabha meeting was not recalled at any subsequent point of time in the month of January, 2006. ( 8 ) The extract of the report of the Gram Sevak (Ex-P) would indicate that no Gram Sabha meeting was held in the month of February, 2006 till May, 2006. For the first time, one special Gram Sabha was arranged on 7th June, 2006. Thereafter, no Gram Sabha was held in the month of July, 2006. No such meeting was held in the month of August, 2006 on scheduled date, but it was adjourned and on 29th August, 2006, a special Gram Sabha meeting was held. Similarly, a special Gram Sabha meeting was held on 30th September, 2006 and 2nd October, 2006. 8. Section 7 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act reads as follows : “7. (1) There shall be held at least six meetings of the Gram Sabha every financial year on such date, at such time and place, and in such manner, as may be prescribed and if the Sarpanch, or in his absence, the Upa-Sarpanch fails without sufficient cause, to hold any of such four meetings he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case maybe, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of the term of office of the ( 9 ) members of the panchayat, and the Secretary of the panchayat shall also if, prima facie, found responsible of any lapse in convening such meeting, be liable to be suspended, and for being proceeded against, for such other disciplinary action as provided under the relevant rules. The decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was such sufficient cause shall be final. Provided that, the Sarpanch may, at any time of his own motion, and shall, on requisition of the Standing Committee, Panchayat Samiti, or Chief Executive Officer, call a meeting of the Gram Sabha within the period specified in the requisition; and, on the failure to do so, the Chief Executive Officer shall require the Block Development Officer to call the meeting within fifteen days from the date he is so required to do. The meeting shall, notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (3), be presided over by him or any officer authorised by the Block Development Officer, in that behalf.; Provided further that, a period of not more than three months shall be allowed to elapse between the two meetings of the Gram Sabha; Provided also that, if the Sarpanch or Upa- Sarpanch, as the case may be, fails to call any such meeting within the specified period, the ( 10 ) Secretary shall call the meeting and it shall be presumed that, such meeting has been called with the concurrence of the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch.” On plain reading of section 7 (1), it is manifest that at least six (6) meetings of the Gram Sabha are required to be held in every financial year. It is further clear that if the Sarpanch fails without sufficient cause to hold any four (4) of such meetings, then he shall be liable for disqualification. He will be ineligible to continue as Sarpanch due to such lapses on his part. 9. In this context, I shall now advert to the stand taken by the petitioner during hearing before the learned Additional Collector. In his pleadings, he did not explain as to how the number of Gram Sabhas were arranged by him during the period November, 2005 to 31st March, 2006. Copy of his written argument (Exh-C) shows that he offered general denial and stated that he had performed his duty properly. He highlighted his public works but did not give any particulars of the Gram Sabhas held during the relevant period. He vaguely ( 11 ) alleged that the respondent No. 2 and his brother had created nuisance in each of the programme of the village. There is hardly any evidence, however, to show that the petitioner had, in fact, held/conducted the Gram Sabhas as required under the law. It was incumbent on him to hold at least four (4) Gram Sabhas during the relevant period. Assuming that for the year 2005-2006, the financial year ended by 31st March, 2006 and the number of Gram Sabhas to the extent of four could not have been arranged, then also proportionately, he ought to have arranged at least two (2) of the Gram Sabhas in order to show substantial compliance of section 7 (1). 10. Mr. Amol Gandhi seeks to rely on “Vilas s/o Sanjay Pawar v. Pandharinath s/o Tukaram Kotsulwar and others” (supra). A Single Bench of this Court observed that the petitioner – Vilas Pawar had not scuttled the democratic process. It has been observed : “In fact, the number of meetings that have been held as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, far exceed the meetings ( 12 ) usually held in other Gram Panchayats. As indicated above, the meetings were held on some other dates. The said provisions have been introduced so that at the village level there is an active participation of the villagers in the local self Government. In my view, the explanation tendered by the petitioner for not holding the meetings on the dates when they were to be held appears to be bona fide and, therefore, deserves to be accepted.” Needless to say, the meetings were held by the petitioner – Vilas Pawar in the given case and his explanation for not holding them on the scheduled dates as contemplated under section 7 was acceptable. The Court found that said explanation was bonafide. That is not the fact situation in the present case. The petitioner failed to prove that he had arranged for the required number of Gram Sabhas. He failed to prove that he had been unable to arrange for any particular Gram Sabha on the scheduled date because of certain exigencies. Assuming that two of such Gram Sabhas were re-scheduled due to lack of coram, then also there ( 13 ) appears no tangible reason why Gram Sabha was not held between November, 2005 to April, 2006. In other words, the petitioner failed to make sincere efforts for obtaining villagers’ participation in the democratic process of the self-governance at the village level. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgement and order cannot be faulted with. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there appears no merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. 12. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, civil application No. 4989/2008 does not survive and hence, stands disposed of accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp774-07