Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Dashrath Juware, was a member of Gram Panchayat Thanegaon. Respondent No.4 filed a complaint on 24.11.2021 alleging that the petitioner was carrying on business in a shop called 'Vidharba Welding' and had encroached on government land. The Collector, Gadchiroli, by order dated 26.06.2022, disqualified the petitioner under clause 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, who rejected the appeal on 20.09.2023. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petitioner argued that no spot inspection was carried out to verify the encroachment, and he was not called to remain present during any inspection. The court, relying on its earlier decision in Sau. Laita Dilip Khandalkar v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and others (2019(6) ALL MR 361), held that the disqualification order was passed without following due process and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be present during inspection. The court found the impugned orders perverse and set them aside, allowing the petition. The court directed that if the authorities wish to proceed further, they must conduct a spot inspection in accordance with law and after giving notice to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Disqualification of Member - Encroachment on Government Land - Clause 14(1)(j-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - The court considered whether disqualification for encroachment can be sustained without a spot inspection and without giving the member an opportunity to be present. Held that spot inspection is mandatory and the member must be given notice and opportunity to remain present; failure renders the order perverse and violative of natural justice (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of disqualification of a Gram Panchayat member for encroachment on government land can be sustained without a spot inspection and without affording the member an opportunity to be present during such inspection.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2022 passed by the Collector, Gadchiroli and the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division are quashed and set aside. If the authorities wish to proceed further, they shall conduct a spot inspection in accordance with law and after giving notice to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Spot inspection mandatory
- Disqualification requires due process
- Encroachment must be proved by inspection
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (03) 171
WRIT PETITION NO.6543 OF 2023
Mr. Bhojraj Dhandale for Petitioner; Mrs. Mrunal S. Naik, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State; Mr. U. P. Dable for Respondent No.4
Shri Manoj Dashrath Juware
The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur; The Collector, Gadchiroli; The Gram Panchayat, Thanegaon; Shri Gopal Jagannath Bhandekar; Assistant Engineer Class-I, National Highway Sub-Division, Gadchiroli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging disqualification order of a Gram Panchayat member.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the disqualification order dated 26.06.2022 passed by the Collector and the appellate order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was disqualified as a member of Gram Panchayat for alleged encroachment on government land without proper spot inspection and without affording him an opportunity to be present.
Previous Decisions
Collector disqualified petitioner on 26.06.2022; Additional Commissioner rejected appeal on 20.09.2023.
Issues
Whether the disqualification order under clause 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 is sustainable without a spot inspection and without giving the member an opportunity to be present during inspection.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that no spot inspection was carried out to identify encroachment and he was not called to remain present at any inspection; impugned orders are perverse and against settled law in Laita (supra).
Respondent No.4 contended that notice was issued to the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to file a reply.
Ratio Decidendi
Disqualification of a Gram Panchayat member for encroachment on government land under clause 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 requires a spot inspection to verify the encroachment, and the member must be given notice and an opportunity to remain present during such inspection. Failure to do so renders the disqualification order perverse and violative of principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question in the present petition as raised by the petitioner is that the order for disqualification as Member of Gram Panchayat, Thanegaon, is passed without following due process and the observations of this Court in the case of Sau. Laita Dilip Khandalkar v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others reported in 2019(6) ALL MR 361.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that first of all no spot inspection was carried out in order to identify whether there is any encroachment on the government land and that the same was carried out by the petitioner so as to incur disqualification.
Procedural History
Complaint filed by respondent No.4 on 24.11.2021; Collector disqualified petitioner on 26.06.2022; petitioner appealed to Additional Commissioner who rejected appeal on 20.09.2023; petitioner filed writ petition on 14.03.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959: Clause 14(1)(j-3)
