wp2992.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2992 OF 2011 DHRUPATABAI SURYABHAN PAWAR... PETITINER. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS .... RESPONDENTS. ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. M.V. Ghadge, h/f Mr. Gadegaonkar Bharat N. AGP for Respondents: Mr.V.G. Shelke. R.Nos.3 & 4 Served - absent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 18th November, 2011. PER COURT: Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Though the respondents No.3 and 4 are served, none appears for them. 2 Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for hearing. wp2992.11 2 3 The respondent No.3 filed an application for disqualifying the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch for not holding the statutory meeting. The said application was filed with the respondent No.2. The petitioner herein filed reply to the said application. On 20th February, 2010, the respondent No.2 disqualified the petitioner. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order dated 20th February, 2010 passed by the respondent no.2. This Court in writ petition No.3413 of 2010 remitted the matter back to the respondent No.2 for fresh enquiry. 4 After remanding the matter back to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 issued fresh notice to the petitioner for enquiry. The respondent No.3 complainant filed fresh application on 17th August, 2010. On 15th December, 2010 the respondent No.2 disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Sarpanch and further observed that the petitioner will not be eligible to contest the election for the said post for remaining term. 5 This contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 did not communicate or hand over specific charges against the petitioner so as to enable the wp2992.11 3 petitioner to answer those charges. In short, it is the contention of the petitioner that in absence of framing any specific charges and furnishing the same to the petitioner, the enquiry conducted by the respondent No.2 stands vitiated. The petitioner was supposed to know as to what are the charges against him so as to reply the same. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 travelled beyond the scope and prayer in the application filed by the respondent No.3 in the month of May, 2009. Fresh application which was filed by respondent No.3 was not subject matter of earlier enquiry and, therefore, respondent No.2 should not have conducted the enquiry for 2010 - 11. 6 The learned AGP appearing for the State invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2. It is stated in the said affidavit that ample opportunities were given to the petitioner to put forth his case. It is further stated that necessary meetings and Gram Sabhas were not conducted by the petitioner in the Financial Year, 2009-10 and 2010-11. From careful reading of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.2, it is clear that nothing has been stated by the respondent No.2 in the affidavit that along with notice sent to the petitioner wp2992.11 4 specific charges were communicated to the petitioner so as to enable him to reply those charges. Therefore, upon perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it is abundantly clear that respondent No.2 did not frame any specific charge / charges and communicate to the petitioner. 7 The point raised in this petition is no more res integra and the same is covered by the authoritative pronouncement in case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle vs. Additional Collector & Ors. (2010(4) Bom.C.R. 700). This Court, in the facts of that case, has taken a view that in order to enable the petitioner to raise proper defence and explain sufficient cause for his failure to perform any statutory function, he must be informed essentially as regards his failure meaning thereby he must be communicated the specific charges. In the said case, specific charges were not communicated to the petitioner therein who was holding post of Sarpanch. In the present case also, specific charges were not communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, the enquiry and the order passed by the respondent No.2 is vitiated. 8 Therefore, the impugned order dated 15th December wp2992.11 5 2010 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. At the same time, it is made clear that it would be open to the authorities to take cognizance of any complaint made and received and conduct enquiry, if found necessary, in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly and stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*