(1) WP 9600.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9600 OF 2010 Smt. Shantabai Govindrao Tarmekwad Aged : 50 years, Occu.: Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Sindagi (Mohpur), Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded Petitioner VERSUS The Additional Collector, Nanded and ors. Respondents ..... Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil,, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 Mr. D.S. Manorkar, Advocate for the respondent no.4 ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioners challenge the order rendered by the Additional Collector, Nanded in proceedings no. 2010/GB/Desk- I/Grampanchayat/Appeal-9. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Collector declared the petitioner as dis-qualified to continue as Sarpanch of village Panchayat, Sindagi (Moh) Tq. Kinwat. (2) WP 9600.2010 2. The question involved in this Petition is whether the petitioner has been properly disqualified under section 7 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 or that the impugned order suffers from perversity or arbitrariness so as to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the parties and learned A.G.P. 4. The dis-qualification of the petitioner is rendered on the ground that she did not, in her capacity as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, conduct require number of Gramsabhas during the relevant period between 2006 to 2010. The objection was raised by the Village Panchayat members regarding eligibility of the petitioner to continue as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, for the reason that she did not conduct the required number of Gramsabhas nor had taken active interest in the development of the village. The Additional Collector called for the relevant record from the Gramsevak after giving notices to the parties. The record reveal that in the year 2006 to 2009 not a single Gramsabha was (3) WP 9600.2010 arranged by the petitioner. The record also reveal that between 2009-2010 the petitioner had arranged for only two Gramsabhas. It was also found that only one Gramsabha was hold in 2009-2010. Considering the record and after hearing the parties, the learned Additional Collector reached a conclusion that the petitioner earned the disqualification due to violation of section 7(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. In keeping with said findings, the petitioner was declared as disqualified for continuation for further period and was removed from the post of Sarpanch. 5. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. Gaikwad and Mr. Manorkar for the respective respondents and the learned A.G.P. 6. The first contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in absence of the Sarpanch, it is the responsibility of the Upa-Sarpanch to conduct the Gramsabha and, therefore, if disqualification is to be incurred due to non-conducting of such Gramsabhas, both of them (4) WP 9600.2010 ought to be held as disqualified persons. It is argued further that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to demonstrate as to how she was not responsible for the failure to arrange for the Gramsabhas. It is contended that the enquiry was not properly held by the learned Additional Collector. Reliance is placed on "Pratibha Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector and others 2010(4) Bom.C.R. 700." 7. Authority referred by learned senior counsel is inapplicable to the fact situation of the present case. In case of "Pratibha Sanjay Hulle" (supra), it was noticed that the enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer and not by the Collector. The enquiry cannot be entrusted to any other agency. The competent officer is required to conduct enquiry himself is the principle laid down in case of "Pratibha Sanjay Hulle"(supra). In the present case, the Additional Collector himself had conducted the enquiry by calling the relevant record and after issuing notices to the parties. Not only that but the petitioner filed her reply after receiving the due notices issued by the Additional Collector. (5) WP 9600.2010 Perusal of her reply would make it amply clear that she specifically alleged that she had conducted the Gramsabhas in August, 2009, November, 2009 and on 26.1.2010. She did not give any detail about other Gramsabhas. No particulars were given in the reply filed by the petitioner as regards the number of Gramsabhas arranged by her during the relevant period. 8. On careful consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Collector, it is manifestly clear that she was unable to demonstrate as to how she had conducted the requisite number of Gramsabhas during the relevant period. Indeed, she asserted that she had conducted only two Gramsabhas in the year 2009 and one Gramsabha on 26.1.2010. That is the precise finding given by the learned Additional Collector in the impugned order. Needless to say there appears no dispute about the fact situation regarding the number of Gramsabhas arranged by the petitioner. Once it is found that the petitioner did not admittedly held any Gramsabha during the relevant period prior to August, 2009 and had held only two Gramsabhas in the (6) WP 9600.2010 year 2009, it goes without saying that she incurred disqualification as contemplated under section 7(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. Section 7(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, reads as follows:- “7(1) There shall be held at least six meetings of the Gram Sabha every financial year on such date, at such time and place, and in such manner, as may be prescribed and if the Sarpanch, or in his absence the Upa- Sarpanch fails without sufficient cause, to hold any of such four meetings he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of the term of office of the members of the panchayat; and the Secretary of the panchayat shall also if, prima facie, found responsible of any lapse in convening such meeting, be liable to be suspended, and for being proceeded against, for such other disciplinary action as provided under the relevant rules. The decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was such sufficient cause shall be final: Provided that, the Sarpanch may, at any time of his own motion, and shall, on requisition of the Standing Committee, (7) WP 9600.2010 Panchayat Samiti, or Chief Executive Officer, call a meeting of the Gram Sabha within the period specified in the requisition; and, on the failure to do so, the Chief Executive Officer shall require the Block Development Officer to call the meeting within fifteen days from the date he is so required to do. The meeting shall, notwithstanding the provisions of sub- section (3), be presided over by him or any officer authorised by the Block Development Officer, in that behalf: Provided further that, a period of not more than three months shall be allowed to elapse between the two meetings of the Gram Sabha: Provided also that if the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, fails to call any such meeting within the specified period, the Secretary shall call the meeting and it shall be presumed that, such meeting has been called with the concurrence of the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa- Sarpanch.” 9. Perusal of the above provision would make it amply clear that the decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was a sufficient cause for not holding of the Gramsabhas would be final. It is true that if the Sarpanch fails to conduct these (8) WP 9600.2010 Gramsabhas in an year, the disqualification would be automatic, unless there is sufficient explanation for the non-compliance of sub section (1) of section 7. The argument that the Sarpanch as well as the Upa- Sarpanch will be disqualified, simultaneously, if the requisite number of Gramsabhas are not held in the relevant year, is without any merits. The law requires holding of the Gramsabhas by the Sarpanch as per sub-section (1) of section 7 and it is only in his absence that the Upa-Sarpanch would be under obligation to conduct such Gramsabhas. The very purpose of the provision is to facilitate participation of the villagers in the decision making process of the Village Panchayat. In other words, if due to some or other reason like illness or leave granted to the Sarpanch, by the competent authority, the Gramsabha could not be arranged, then it may be called by the Upa-Sarpanch. It does not however mean that both of them are simultaneously disqualified due to failure of the Sarpanch to arrange the requisite number of Gramsabhas in the relevant year. 10. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present Petition. In the result, the (9) WP 9600.2010 Petition is dismissed. No costs. The interim order if any stands vacated. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp