1 wp1479.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1479 OF 2011 Shantabai w/o Digambar Dawane, Age: 33 years, Occ: Sarpanch, R/o. Village Mahadapur, Tq.Mahur, District Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Additional District Collector, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.G.P. for respondent State. Mr. P.B. Rakhunde, Advocate for Resp. Nos.3 & 4. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent authorities. 2. The Counsel for the petitioner submits 2 wp1479.11 that, the complaint which was filed by the complainant before the Additional Collector was vague. No any specifications or details were stated in the said complaint for which period Gramsabha is not conducted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that, on such application without any material particulars, notice was issued by the Additional Collector. By the said notice also, no specific charges were communicated to the petitioner. There was no mention about any specific charges/points which are to be answered by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that, the detailed order has been passed by the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector has minutely perused the record made available to him and found that the requisite number of meetings and Gramsabha are not conducted by the 3 wp1479.11 petitioner. He further invited my attention to the provisions of Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and submitted that, to conduct monthly meeting is mandatory and the mandate of the provisions of Section 36 has not been followed by the petitioner and therefore, this Court may not interfere. 4. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that, notice which was issued by the Additional Collector to the petitioner was without mentioning therein the specific charges against the petitioner. Such notice issued to the petitioner should have contained the specific charges so as to enable the petitioner to reply the said charges. The petitioner is elected member of the Grampanchayat and further, he is elected as Sarpanch of the village. There is reflection of popular will and therefore, it is necessary to follow the procedure scrupulously. However, in the present case, there are no detail particulars in the complaint 4 wp1479.11 and also there are no mention of specific charges in the notice issued by the Additional Collector. 5. In that view of the matter and in view of the judgment of this Court in the similar set of facts in the case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle vs. Additional Collector, and others reported in 2010(4) Bom.C.R. 700, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded cannot be sustained, same is quashed and set aside. At the same time, it is made clear that, it would be open for the authorities to take cognizance of any complaint received or may be received and after adopting proper procedure may proceed to hold enquiry, if found necessary in the matter. 6. Writ Petition is allowed to above extent and stands disposed of. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11