1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4878 OF 2008 Shri Bandu Budhaji Sorkhade Petitioner vs. Grampanchayat Davadi & ors. Respondents Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar i/b. Mr.S.M.Mangaonkar for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar,Senior Advocate i/b.Mr.Amol Mhatre for respondents 4 to 6. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for respondents 3, 7 and 8. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 10th July, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Mhaispurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, the learned AGP for respondents 3, 7 and 8 and Mr.Dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner came to be removed from the post of sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Davadi by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division under the provisions of Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The petitioner’s removal is confirmed by the Hon’ble Minister, Rural Development Department in an Appeal. 3. There were five charges against the 2 petitioner-sarpanch. The Divisional Commissioner held that charges at sr. nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 are proved and the charge no.3 is partially proved. One of the charge was that inspite of Gramsabha of village Davadi having resolved not to give permission to the Liquor Bar, the petitioner in subsequent Grampanchayat meeting granted permission to one Ila Ravi Patil to conduct the liquor bar in village Davadi. 4. The submission of the petitioner is that the resolution was passed in the Grampanchayat meeting was subsequently cancelled. However, after going through the minutes of the meeting, I find that the petitioner - sarpanch presided over the Gramsabha meeting. He was very much aware about the aforesaid resolution passed in the Gramsabha. Inspite of this, subject of giving permission to Liquor Bar was taken on agenda in the Grampanchayat meeting. This Grampanchayat meeting was attended only by five members. One member by name Asha Chandrakant Patil opposed to this resolution on the ground that there is already Gramsabha resolution in the field and no Grampanchayat resolution can be passed contrary to the earlier resolution. Even the Gram Sevak also pointed out to the petitioner- sarpanch that no such resolution can be passed. Inspite of this, resolution was passed and permission was given to said Ila Ravi Patil to open the Liquor Bar. Subsequently 3 resolution was cancelled since the villagers protested against the same. In that view of the matter, I am not influenced by subsequent cancellation of the resolution. 5. Both the Authorities below, after hearing the petitioner, have come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve to be continued on the post of sarpanch. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any perversity and illegality in the approach adopted by authorities below. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]