1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1923/2011 (Panchafula D. Pawar VERSUS Addl. Collector & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Chopde, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. Shri S.I. Jagirdar, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 25 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Collector, Akola on 15.04.2011 holding that the petitioner was disqualified under the provisions of Section 36 read with Section 7(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act for holding the Office of the Sarpanch. It appears that the petitioner had not conducted the meetings of the Gram Sabha in the Month of March-2010, April-2010 and May-2010. The petitioner had admitted in the reply and the written notes of arguments that the petitioner had not convened the monthly meetings of March and April- 2010 and the Gram Sabhas for the months of April and May- 2010. The Additional Collector rightly held that the reason stated by the petitioner for not holding the meetings and the Gram Sabhas during the relevant months was not enough for not holding the meetings and the Gram Sabhas. Though the petitioner has stated that the Secretary had resigned on 2 13.03.2010, there was nothing on record to show as to why the petitioner had not conducted the Gram Sabhas and the monthly meetings in the month of March-2010, though the Secretary had not resigned by then. Though the new Secretary joined his duties on 15.05.2010, the Additional Collector found that the petitioner had not conducted the meeting or the Sabha in the month of May-2010. Since, according to the provisions of Section 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, it is the duty of the Sarpanch to conduct the meetings and the Gram Sabhas, according to the Additional Collector, and rightly so, the petitioner was liable to be disqualified from holding the post of Sarpanch. The finding recorded by the Additional Collector is a pure finding of fact based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. The same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 316 (Vilas s/o Sanjay Pawar Versus Pandharinath s/o Tukaram Kotsulwar & others) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of this case as in the facts of the reported decision, the Sarpanch had not conducted a meeting in November-2005 as the villagers were busy in agricultural operations since it was harvesting time and the Rule provided that a meeting could be postponed for that reason. Though in the reported case, it was the case of the Sarpanch that the Proceedings Book was not available, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said reason as in the instant case, the Secretary had resigned on 31.03.2010 and the petitioner had not conducted the meeting in the month of March-2010 though the Secretary had not resigned. 3 Moreover, though the new Secretary had joined his duties on 15.05.2010, the petitioner did not take efforts to conduct a meeting after 15.05.2010. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE