(1) WP. 3413.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3413 OF 2010 Dhurapadabai w/o Suryabhan Pawar Age : 52 years, Occu.: Sarpnach of The Village Grampanchayat, Khambla, R/o Khambla, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. (Copy to be served on G.P. Office, High Court Building, Bench at Aurnagabad) 2. The Additional Collector, Collectorate Office, Nanded Dist. Nanded 3. Baliram S/o Dhoopsing Rathod Age : 30 years, Occu: Agriculture, and Member of Village Grampanchayat Khambala, R/o Khambala, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded .. Respondents Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent-State Mr. P.B. Rakhunde, Advocate for the respondent no.3 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 9TH JULY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. (2) WP. 3413.2010 2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of village Khambala in the month of April, 2008. She was working since then. The respondent no.3 filed application dated 19.5.2009 alleging that the petitioner did not conduct required number of Gramsabhas and monthly meetings during the relevant period of her tenure as Sarpanch. He alleged, therefore, that the petitioner became ineligible to continue as Sarpanch of the village. He sought disqualification of the petitioner. The petitioner’s case was that she conducted the required number of Gramsabhas during the relevant period. She asserted that she is a woman Sarpanch and was being troubled by the respondent no.3 in collusion with the Gramsevak. She further alleged that she was required to make written complaint to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kinwat regarding misappropriation of funds by village Gramsevak Shri V.M. Rathod and therefore she had sought suspension of the Gramsevak. According to her, thereafter the Gramsevak and the respondent no.3 manipulated false record in order to show that no monthly meetings and required number of Gramsabhas were held. Both of (3) WP. 3413.2010 them have colluded with each other to oust her from the post of Sarpanch due to personal vendetta. The learned Additional Collector, Nanded, issued notices and made such an enquiry. He held that as per the record which was produced on 23.6.2009, the petitioner had failed to conduct required number of Gramsabhas for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. She had also not conducted required number of monthly meetings. The learned Additional Collector by the impugned order dated 20.2.2010 held that the petitioner was disqualified to continue as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat in view of section 7(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. 3. The petitioner alleges that the impugned order is bad in law because no proper inquiry was held. She alleges that only manipulated record was put forth before the Additional Collector and that she has been made a victim of collusive ill-will of the respondent no.3 and the Gramsevak. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned AGP. (4) WP. 3413.2010 5. At the outset, let it be noted that the Sarpanch is responsible for conducting of the monthly meetings and the Gramsabhas as required under the provisions of section 7(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The Sarpanch must conduct such Gramsabhas as required under the law i.e. six (6) Gramsabhas in a year and twelve (12) monthly meetings. The Collector however, is required to consider explanation of the village Sarpanch if there is justification for not conducting the Gramsabha in a particular period. In the present case, the dispute was raised by the petitioner as regards authenticity of the record which was placed before the learned Additional Collector. Her specific allegation was that the Gramsevak had managed false record in order to take revenge because of her serious complaints against him. It was her case that the respondent no.3 and the Gramsevak had joined hands in order to oust her from the Office of the Sarpanch. It is significant to notice that the Gramsevak was party to the enquiry before the Additional Collector. It appears that the Gramsevak (5) WP. 3413.2010 did not file any reply nor explained any of the allegations made by the petitioner or respondent no.3. It also appears that the learned Additional Collector did not record statement of the Gram Sevak. The impugned order shows that the disqualification was inferred only on the basis of entries in the record which was produced before the learned Additional Collector by Gramsevak himself. No independent enquiry was made by learned Additional Collector nor he examined the issue as to whether the record was correctly prepared or that it reflected manipulations made by the Gramsevak at the instance of the respondent no.3 (complainant). It appears that the petitioner had filed complaint (Exh. "C" to the Petition) dated 23.3.2009 alleging that the Gramsevak Shri V.M. Rathod had misappropriated amount of Rs.8,78,000/- from the funds received in "Yashwant Gram Samruddhi Yojna". The complaint application was filed by the respondent no.3 after the said complaint of the petitioner against the Gramsevak. 6. In these circumstances, propriety demanded (6) WP. 3413.2010 that the learned Addtional Collector ought to have made independent enquiry from the other members or the villagers or the B.D.O., as the case may be, in order to ascertain whether the record was fabricated by the Gramsevak and the contention of the petitioner was truth bearing. It is also probable that she was alleging manipulation of the record though, in fact number of Gramsabhas were not held and the monthly meetings were also not held. Still, however, such fact ought to be brought on surface after due enquiry. It is well settled that such enquiry is of summary nature. Even so, the Collector cannot give go-bye to the enquiry by simply referring to the entries in the record of such meetings and record about the Gramsabhas when the very maintenance of such record is in dispute. The impugned order does not show that the learned Additional Collector hold any independent enquiry in the matter. 7. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, it is necessary to remit the matter to the learned Additional Collector for de-novo enquiry and decision. (7) WP. 3413.2010 8. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Complaint application is restored to the file of the learned Additional Collector with direction to hold appropriate enquiry and de-novo decide the matter within a period of four (4) months. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp