1 W.P.No.3959/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3959 OF 2011. Gopinath S/o Kisanrao Bulbule, Age 44 years, Occ.Agri & Sarpanch, R/o Patoda, Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Bhiku S/o Amaru Rathod, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Patoda, Tq. Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. 2. The Gramsevak, R/o Patoda, Tq.Kinwat, District Nanded. 3. Ganpat S/o Badu Rathod, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Patoda, Tq. Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. 4. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.B.Rakhunde, advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.R.Jain, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt.Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... 2 W.P.No.3959/11 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 17.10.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner assails the order passed by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner. The present Respondent No.1 had instituted proceedings purportedly U/s 7 read with Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The Collector upheld complaint and disqualified the petitioner for not having held the mandatory Gramsabha and monthly sabha. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. Mr.Jain, learned counsel submits that petitioner has failed to hold the necessary Gramsabhas and the monthly Sabha in the year 3 W.P.No.3959/11 2009-2010 and as such petitioner stands disqualified. The Collector while passing the order has given details about the meetings held. The petitioner being a Sarpanch is required to hold Gramsabha every three months. In the year 2009 after the Gramsabha dated 29.5.2009, the next Gramsabha was held on 19.12.2009 i.e. after a lapse of more than seven months. This fact is sufficient to disqualify the petitioner. The learned counsel further contends that the dismissal of an earlier complaint by a third party would not affect the present proceedings. According to the learned counsel every opportunity was given to the petitioner and as he has not held the requisite number of meetings, the same could not be proved by him. 5. Mr.Rakhunde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total record was not produced before the Collector. The petitioner has held the necessary Gramsabhas and monthly sabha but as the total record was not produced by the Gramsevak, the Collector could not come to a proper conclusion. Even the Collector while 4 W.P.No.3959/11 allowing the complaint has not considered the other aspects of the matter. 6. Section 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, lays down that the petitioner shall be disqualified if the petitioner without sufficient cause fails to hold any of the four such meetings, the Collector has come to the conclusion that in the year 2009-2010, the petitioner has held four Gramsabha. The requirement of holding four Gramsabha is fulfilled. The question that would require determination is whether for not holding six Gramsabha, the petitioner can be disqualified and whether the petitioner has failed to hold mandatory Gramsabha. Perusal of the judgment of the Collector, it is manifest that the Collector has nowhere discussed about the case put forth by the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner had stated about the holding of Gramsabha. The Collector was required to consider in detail each and every meeting, monthly as well as Gramsabha and then should have come to an independent conclusion. In the earlier complaint which was 5 W.P.No.3959/11 dismissed, the Collector had taken into consideration the Gramsabha and monthly meetings held upto 29.5.2009. The same would again not open for scrutiny. The Collector is required to consider the failure on the part of the petitioner to hold requisite Gramsabha after May 2009. 7. The complaint also did not specify for which financial year the grievance was made by the complainant against the petitioner for not holding the Gramsabha and the monthly meetings. Mr.Jain, learned counsel submits that the said complaint was in respect of Gramsabha and monthly meetings for the year 1.4.2009 to 3l.3.2010. The Collector was required to specify the same to the petitioner, so as to enable the petitioner to raise his proper defence. 8. Now as it is made clear that the complaint is in respect of Gramsabha and the monthly meetings not being held by the petitioner for the year 1.4.2009 to 3l.3.2010, the Collector shall after giving opportunity to the parties 6 W.P.No.3959/11 decide afresh, taking into account the original record and the reasons for not holding any meetings raised by the petitioner if any. 9. In view of the above, I relegate the parties to the Collector, Nanded, who shall decide the said proceedings afresh after giving proper opportunity to the parties. 10. The impugned order as such is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. 11. The Collector shall decide the proceedings within a period of three (3) months. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp395911 7 W.P.No.3959/11