1 W.P.No.4302/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4302 OF 2010. Gokul S/o Debising Chavan, Age 45 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Ambadi Tanda, Tq. Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Additional Collector, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 2. Gramsevak, Grampanchayat Ambadi Tanda, Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. 3. Kailas S/o Mangu Jadhav, Age 27 years, Occ.Agriculture, 4. Hanumant S/o Sitaram Kinake, Age major, Occ.Agriculture, 5. Kaushalyabai W/o Ulhas Kumre, Age major, Occ.Household. 6. Ashok S/o Mangu Jadhav, Age Major, Occ.Agriculture, Respondents No.3 to 6 R/o Ambadi Tanda, Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. ... Respondents. 2 W.P.No.4302/10 ... Mr.M.V.Ghatge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.H.V.Patil, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.07.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner at the relevant time was the Sarpanch of village Ambadi Tanda, Tq.Kinwat. The Additional Collector vide order dated 9.4.2010, disqualified the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not hold the required number of meetings. The petitioner has assailed the said order before this Court. 3 W.P.No.4302/10 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even otherwise, the petitioner is not in the office as No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner and the same was passed. 5. Mr.Ghatge, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is per se and ex-facie illegal as the nature of actual lapse on the basis of which the petitioner was to be disqualified were not communicated and intimated to the petitioner as is required U/s 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. On that count itself the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that the record is explicit and clear. The record shows that the petitioner has not conducted the meetings as is required under the law. In such circumstances, no error has been committed by the Addl. Collector,Nanded, while passing the impugned order. 4 W.P.No.4302/10 7. When a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only. When the proceedings for disqualifying the petitioner as Sarpanch were taken up, it was incumbent upon the authority to communicate the petitioner the exact nature of the lapses, irregularities and non- feasance for which the petitioner was sought to be disqualified. In the present case, it appears that only copy of complaint received by the Addl.Collector was given to the petitioner, without bringing it to the notice of the petitioner the exact nature of lapses for which the petitioner could have given explanation and whether he is entitled for exemption. 8. In light of the above, the impugned order can not be sustained and the same is set aside. The parties are relegated to the Addl.Collector,Nanded who after giving opportunity to the parties shall decide the same afresh. 9. However, as No Confidence Motion is 5 W.P.No.4302/10 already passed against the petitioner, the petitioner can not be reinstated as a Sarpanch. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp4302.10