1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1538 OF 2009 1. Gautam s/o. Govind Somwanshi, Age 33 yrs., Occu. Agri., 2. Apparao s/o. Tukaram Patil, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agri., 3. Shesherao s/o. Maroti Tirakmate, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Agri., 4. Anita w/o. Nivrutti Barsalle, Age 35 yrs., Occu. Household, All R/o. Wadhwana (Kh), Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Additional Collector, Latur, Dist. Latur. 3. The Gram Sevak, Grampanchayat Wadhavana (Khd.), Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 4. Sau. Sojarbai w/o. Balaji Tondare, Age Major, Occu. Household, R/o. Wadhavana (Khd), Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ....Respondents. Shri. S.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. D.B.Bhange, Advocate for respondent No. 4. 2 CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 15th June 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Latur, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for disqualifying the respondent No. 4 Sou. Sojarbai w/o. Balaji Tondare under section 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 2. Notice was issued in this matter on 17.3.2009. The learned A.G.P. waives service of notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are served. Shri. Bhange appears for respondent No. 4. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 3. In the impugned order dated 10.2.2009, rejecting the application of the petitioner for disqualification of respondent No. 4, it has been held that the respondent No. 4 has failed to convene Gram Sabha and monthly meetings on some occasions. However, the explanation for not convening the meeting furnished by the respondent No. 4 has been accepted and the application for disqualification has been rejected. The same is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 3 4. Shri. Gadegaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reasons given for acceptance of explanation are misconceived and those are not relevant for the purpose of not convening the meeting. According to him, the reasons may be relevant for not actually holding the meeting, however, the requirement of law under section 36 of the said Act is regarding failure to convene the meeting. 4. Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1959, which is relevant, is reproduced below :- "36. The time and place of sitting, and the procedure at a meeting, of the panchayat shall be such as may be prescribed : [Provided that, if the Sarpanch, or his absence the Upa-Sarpanch, fails without sufficient cause, to convene the meeting of the panchayat in any financial year according to the rules prescribed in that behalf, he shall be disqualified for continuing the as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa- Sarpanch of the panchayat. The decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was sufficient cause shall be final." Bare perusal of the above proviso reveals that it confers discretion upon the Collector to accept or to reject the sufficient cause put forth by a person for not convening the meetings of the Panchayat as required. The reasons are recorded showing sufficient cause which satisfied the competent authority and hence, the proceedings of disqualification are dropped. Reasons recorded cannot be said tobe irrelevant or 4 insufficieent. Hence, the discretion exercised by Collector needs no interference. Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp1538.09