Wp 8675 of 09 1 SSK/35 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8675 OF 2009 Shri Dattaram Ganpat Dhumal ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Rajashree Prakash Raje & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A. R. Pitale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 15TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Pitale, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP for Respondent No.5. 2. The Respondent No.1 is a Sarpanch and Respondent No.2 is Upa-Sarpanch of Grampanchayat – Shahapur. The Petitioner claims to be a member of Vigilance Committee. He preferred an application before the President, Zilla-Parishad, Thane on 16th August, 2008 making a grievance that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have not complied with the provisions of section 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and therefore, they should be removed from the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. It is worth to mention that a copy of the aforesaid application was also forwarded to the Wp 8675 of 09 2 Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner thereafter called for report from the Chief Executive Officer under section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and passed the order on 9th March, 2009 rejecting the Petitioner’s application. The Divisional Commissioner found that the Petitioner could not prove the allegations made by him against the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. This order of the Divisional Commissioner was confirmed by the Minister for Rural Development Department on 31st July, 2009. I have perused the provisions of Section 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. Under the said section, the collector is the competent authority who can take a disciplinary action against the Sarpanch or Upa- Sarpanch as the case may be on failure to hold Gram Sabha meetings without any sufficient cause. The Petitioner never approached the Collector and he approached the Zilla-Parishad. The Divisional Commissioner followed the procedure under section 39(1) of the said Act and called for report of the Zilla-Parishad and ultimately decided the Petitioner’s application. Though the procedure adopted by the Respondent-authorities is not in accordance with law, I find that even the Petitioner did not approach the competent authority under section 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.)