(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9994 OF 2010 Sow. Kamal Bhanudas Londhe, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Household & Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Gojwada, R/o. Gojwada, Taluka : Washi, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Additional Collector, Osmanabad. 3. Grampanchayat Gojwada, Through Gramsevak Grampanchayat Office, Gojwada, Taluka : Washi, District : Osmanabad. 4. Kalyan s/o. Shankar Aaran, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Labourer, and Member Grampanchayat, Gojwada, Taluka : Washi, District : Osmanabad. 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 5. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, with Mr. M.A. Thorbole, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date of reserving the judgment : 10th March 2011. Date of pronouncing the judgment : 22nd March 2011. JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this matter filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sarpancha of Grampanchayat, Gojwada is challenging the orders dated 6/10/2010 passed by respondent 2 Additional Collector, Osmanabad declaring her disqualified to (3) continue as such for not holding monthly meetings of the Gram- panchayat as required by S. 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, referred to as 1958 Act hereafter. On 21/10/2010, this Court has stayed that order but then restrained her from taking any political decision. Matter was being heard finally. Hence Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. On 2/2/2011, respective Counsel concluded their arguments & then doubt about the period mentioned in certificate accompanying the application dated 18/8/2009 seeking disqualification arose as according to petitioner, she was not aware that same was sought was for not holding the meetings between 2/10/2007 till 16/6/2009. Respondent 4 then filed an affidavit before this Court on 10/3/2011 with affidavit of Dnyaneshwar Bhimraj Sokande, Gramsevak/Secretary of Gram- panchayat clarifying that he had received records of Gramsabha meetings held on 2/10/2001,26/11/2001,27/11/2001, 3/7/2002, 15/8/2002, 11/2/2006, 21/5/2008 & 16/6/2008 and other record was not received by him while accepting the charge. After further hearing the Counsel for parties, matter then was closed for judgment. 4. Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for petitioner points out that petitioner became Sarpnacha in 2007 and hence, (4) is not answerable for earlier period. Respondent 4 sought her disqualification for not holding the Gramsabha meetings between 2/10/2001 to 16/6/2008. Action was sought against Sarpancha as also Upa-Sarpancha for not holding these meetings as also against Gramsevak as per Section 7 of the Act read with its S. 36. Petitioner was declared disqualified under S. 36 of the Act on 7/4/2010 and that was assailed in W.P. No. 3889/2010. After noticing the lacunae in the procedure followed, on 7/7/2010 this Court set aside that order & remanded the matter for de-novo inquiry by additional collector. She argues that certificate issued by Shri Sokande is false and he was not examined before the additional collector. For the purposes of disqualification under S. 7, financial year is only relevant and in present matter that year could have been 2007 to 2008. period of 1/4/2008 to 16/6/2008 looked into by additional collector is incomplete and no finding of disqualification can be based on it. Report of the Chief executive Officer dated 30/3/2010 is stated to be based only upon the statements of the Ex-Gramsevak Shri N.S. Jadhavar and the then gramsevak Shri Menkudle. On the basis of this material, according to her, petitioner could not have been declared disqualified for not holding Gramsabhas between 2/10/2007 to 16/6/2009. She points out that requisite number of Gramsabhas are already held and that record could not have been disbelieved. Evidence of Gramsevak Shri Jadhavar is not credit- (5) worthy & should not have been relied upon. Attention is also invited to report of extension officer dated 26/3/2010 to show that it supports actual holding of meetings and it merely alleges increasing the number of persons attending the same. Inconsistency in the say of Jadhavar as appreciated therein is also attempted to be demonstrated to urge that his stand of writing those proceedings later under pressure of petitioner is false. 5. Shri Patil for respondent 4 contends that assertion in application filed before the additional collector need to be understood correctly & no meetings have been held from 1/4/2008 to 31/3/2009. Certificate dated 30/7/2009 by Gramsevak is pressed into service for said purpose. He urges that Shri Jadhvar has specifically given statement to BDO about not holding of Gramsabha & monthly meetings from 2/10/2007 till 23/5/2009. 6. Learned AGP for respondent 1 &2 has supported the impugned order. As the findings are based on material on record & not perverse, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 7. From the arguments advanced, it is apparent that only legal issue is of prejudice to petitioner if the application of (6) respondent 4 as filed before additional collector is held to be vague. The contention based upon the financial year is clearly misconceived as failure to hold even a single Gram-Sabha invites disqualification. Here the finding about person responsible for not holding the meeting is also not warranted as petitioner claims to have held all meetings on schedule and comes with contention that Gramsevaks are lying. She does not say that as she was absent or prevented by sufficient cause, the meetings/a particular meeting could not be held. Thus fact whether meetings were held or not is basically a question of fact. 8. Perusal of application filed before respondent 2 by respondent 4 shows that after his election as member of Grampanchayat in Octber,2007, he and two other members time & again requested Sarpancha to hold Gramsabhas as per S. 7 of the Act but then till filing of that application ie till 18/8/2009 such meetings were not conducted. He has filed a certificate dated 30/7/2009 issued by Gramsevak (respondent 3 before add. Collector) disclosing meetings conducted between 2/10/2001 to 16/6/2008. Those dates or meetings are already mentioned above by me. It therefore shows a case that except for Gramsabha meetings held on 2/10/2001,26/11/2001,27/11/2001, 3/7/2002, 15/8/2002, 11/2/2006, 21/5/2008 & 16/6/2008, no other meetings were held. Thus petitioner who became Sarpancha in (7) October,2007 was aware of the charge that only two Gramsabhas were held thereafter during her regime of about 23 months which did not meet the requirements of S. 7 of the Act. S.7 mandated at-least 6 meetings in financial year 2008-- 2009. Looking to her stand that she held all requisite meetings, her objection about prejudice is also misconceived. She was aware of the case pleaded & has met it. This position about number of meetings is appropriately dealt with by the additional collector. In any case, after remand by this Court, petitioner was aware of the case against her. 9. Similarly period during which respective Gramsevak worked is also not very relevant. The petitioner has cross- examined them and still could not bring on record any material to show that any particular resolution of Gramsabha was later implemented or reflected in contemporaneous records or working of Grampanchayat. Signing on proceedings at the room of Shri Sokande and writing of proceedings by Shri Jadhavar in own house are two different aspects not inconsistent with each other. Facts on record & legal provisions are correctly evaluated. Petitioner has failed to establish the holding of Gramsabhas as per S. 7 and finding of respondent 2 in this connection is neither erroneous nor perverse. (8) 10. I therefore find no perversity or jurisdictional error warranting exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. Needless to mention, that the interim relief stands vacated. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... DRAGON File :bgp/9994wp