(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7651 OF 2010 Prabhakar s/o. Wamanrao Vitekar, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Sarpanch, R/o. Dhavedi, Taluka & District : Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai). 2. The Additional Collector, Jalna. 3. The Gramsevak, Grampanchayat, Dhavedi, Taluka & Dist. : Jalna. 4. Nitin s/o. Bhaskar Shejwal (then Gramsevak), Age : - , Occupation : Suspended, R/o. Near Osmanpura Police Station, District : Aurangabad. (2) 5. Nivruti s/o. Dattu Sable, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dhavedi, Taluka & District : Jalna. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. N.P. Bangar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Respondent no.3 served (Absent). Mr. G.R. Vaidya, Advocate, for respondent no.4. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent no.5. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. None for respondent no.3 though duly served. 2. For not holding necessary meetings as per Section 7 (3) and Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the authorities have concurrently found petitioner disqualified. 3. The contention before this Court is, meetings were in fact held but as the Gramsevak did not cooperate, the proceedings thereof have not been recorded. Adv. Mr. Bangar, for the petitioner, has invited attention to the proceedings of the meeting dated 15-8-2008 filed at Exhibit "D" to point out that on that day, Gram Sabha has been conducted. A specific defence on these lines, raised before the Extension Officer vide reply dated 17-11-2008 is also relied upon. It is urged that without holding any inquiry through Block Development Officer and without framing charges, the petitioner has been declared disqualified and this is in violation of principles of natural justice. Support is being taken from the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2010(5) Mh.L.J. 47, in the case of Pratibha w/o. Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector, Latur and others. 4. Learned AGP Mr. Kurundkar, for respondent nos.1 and 2; Adv. Mr. Vaidya, for respondent no.4, and Adv. Mr. Salunke, for respondent no.5, are supporting the impugned order. 5. Perusal of reported judgment, cited supra, reveals that there, application seeking disqualification of petitioner Pratibha (4) as Sarpanch was moved on 29-6-2009 and thereafter Block Development Officer was directed to hold inquiry; report of inquiry was received on 31-8-2009 and thereafter petitioner was issued notice for the first time on 11-9-2009. The notice called upon her to appear and show cause. It is, therefore, apparent that the purpose for which she was called upon to show cause and also the report of Block Development Officer were not made available to her. In that background, this Court has made observation, that without informing the petitioner therein about the charges, the matter could not have proceeded further. Here, it is not the case of the petitioner, that he did not receive copy of application for his disqualification. On the contrary, he was aware of allegations made against him and he attempted to counter the same by pointing out that meetings have in fact been held. 6. The proceedings of the meeting dated 15-8-2008 are recorded below a notice dated 14-8-2008 which is issued by Head Master of Primary School. By that notice, Head Master has invited the President of the School Committee and all members thereof, as also, members of Grampanchayat, members of parent association and other parents to remain present in the school at 8 'O' Clock for flag hoisting. Below this notice, on 15-8-2008, the alleged proceedings of Gram Sabha are recorded. (5) It is mentioned that the Gram Sabha was scheduled on 15-8-2008 at 9 'O' Clock. The proceedings are signed by the petitioner and 8 others. At the bottom, there is signature of Head Master. 7. The petitioner is not in a position to point out the dates on which notices for holding of Gram Sabha were issued. Not only this, in reply, the relevant dates on which notices for respective Gram Sabha were issued are not disclosed. It is apparent that the proceedings allegedly recorded on 15-8-2008 cannot be read as proceedings of Gram Sabha. 8. The petitioner has failed to substantiate that the meetings as required under Section 7 and Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, were in fact conducted and those proceedings have been recorded. The findings reached concurrently do not call for any interference. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7651