1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3263 OF 2009 PETITIONER : Ratandeep Lalchand Rangari Aged about 40 years, Occu. Cultivator Ex-Sarpanch Grampanchayat, Mahadula, R/o Mahadula, Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur. - VERSUS - RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra, through Minister for Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2] The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mahadula, Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur. 3] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. 4] The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. 5] Shri Shrikant Chahakar, Aged Major, Occu. Cultivator 6] Shri Omshila Khobragade, Aged Major, Occu. Cultivator 7] Sau. Surekha Kakde Aged Major, Occu. Cultivator 8] Shri Sudhakar Jambhodi Aged Major, Occu. Cultivator 9] Shri Pankaj Dhone Aged Major, Occu. Cultivator 10] Sau. Shakuntala Rahangdale Aged Major, Occu. Cultivator 2 11] Shri Prital Lohsarva Aged Major, Occu. Cultivator 12] Shri Rajendra Raut, Aged Major, Occu. Cultivator Respondent Nos. 5 to 12, all R/o Mahadula, Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, Advocate for Appellant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 16th June, 2010. P. C. 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2] This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order dated 08/4/2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3263/2009. The writ petition was arising from the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the Minister of State for Rural Development, by which, in exercise of the powers under Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short “the Act of 1958”), they had removed respondent Nos.5 to 12 from the membership of the Gram Panchayat, Mahadula. 3 3] The learned Single Judge has considered all the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and respondent nos.5 to 12 at length and for the reasons recorded in the judgment, has rightly allowed the petition filed by the respondent nos. 5 to 12, setting aside the order dated 24/7/2009, passed by the Hon'ble Minister of State and the order dated 23/4/2009, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 4] We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. At the outset, he submitted that working of the Gram Panchayat had come to a stand still in view of the strange behaviour of respondent nos.5 to 12 and that they were acting against the interest of the Gram Panchayat. When we asked the learned counsel for appellant to elaborate, he submitted that these respondents used to vote against every resolution that was moved by the appellant, though the resolutions were in the larger interest of the village and approving the schemes of the Government. We are unable to accept the contention urged that the act of respondent nos.5 to 12 voting against the resolutions, by any stretch of imagination, would amount to misconduct in the discharge of their duties, or disgraceful conduct, or neglect of or incapacity to perform their duty or amounts to persistently remissing in the discharge thereof as 4 contemplated by Section 39 of the Act of 1958. In any case, in the facts of the case, the provisions of Section 39 cannot be stated to have been attracted as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge. 5] In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has considered the case in a proper perspective and we do not find any ground warranting interference in the instant appeal. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale