1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3889 OF 2010 Sow.Kamal Bhanudas Londhe and another. ..Petitioners V/s The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.M.A. Kulkarni, advocate for petitioners. Mr.D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.B. Bhapkar, advocate for respondent no.4. Mr.S.B. Ghute, advocate for respondent no.5. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 7th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 7th April, 2010, rendered by the learned Additional Collector, Osmanabad in the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.4- complainant seeking disqualification of the petitioners under Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The learned Additional Collector allowed the complaint-application of the respondent no.4 and held that the petitioners were disqualified to continue in the office as Sarpanch and Upsarpanch. 2. The learned Additional Collector, relied upon a report dated 30th March, 2010, which was submitted by the Chief 2 Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. It is explicit from the impugned order that the learned Additional Collector gave findings about the disqualification of the petitioners only on the basis of the contents of report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. The learned Additional Collector did not make separate enquiry. 3. Section 7(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 reads as under:- "Section 7(1):- There shall be held at least six meeting 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 may be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of the term of office of the 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: 3 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 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." 4. The enquiry to be made in such proceedings is a summary enquiry. The report of the Chief Executive Officer was not made available to the petitioners. Nor two Gram Sevaks namely Shri.Jadhavar and Shri.Menkudale were examined before the learned Additional Collector. The law relating holding of Gram 4 Sabhas is also required to be considered inview of Section 7(7) of the Act. If there are illegalities committed by the employees, the Block Development Officer is required to be reported and the employee can be dealt with appropriately by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. The manner of holding the gram sabhas is also regulated by the relevant Rules. The question is whether, the required number of Gram Sabhas were held by the petitioners or that they had manipulated fake record regarding holding of such Gram Sabhas. The learned Additional Collector himself ought to have conducted the enquiry in this context. He did not make the enquiry. He simply relied on the contents of the report received from the Chief Executive Officer. In this view of the matter, the enquiry itself is improper and illegal. The impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. It goes without saying that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Additional Collector is directed to conduct denovo enquiry in accordance with law within a period of three months and to denovo decide the complaint-application filed by the respondent no.4. He shall not be prejudiced by any of the observations made in this order and will be at liberty to additionally consider the report of Chief Executive Officer after furnishing copy 5 thereof to the petitioners and on consideration of the relevant material apart from the contents of that report. Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp3889.10