Bombay High Court Quashes Disqualification of Sarpanch for Non-Conduct of Gram Sabha Meetings During COVID-19 Pandemic. Failure to hold four Gram Sabha meetings due to prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC and COVID-19 restrictions is not wilful default under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 307
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Manohar Dnyaneshwar Pote, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gundewadi in Jalna district. Respondent No.3, Sahebrao Balwanta Pote, filed an application before the Collector (Respondent No.1) on 22.10.2021 seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, alleging that the petitioner had not conducted four Gram Sabha meetings in the financial year. The Collector issued a notice to the petitioner on 30.12.2021. The Gramsevak (Respondent No.2) submitted a report on 11.05.2022. The petitioner filed his say on 14.06.2022, explaining that the delay in holding meetings was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC passed by the Collector himself. Despite this explanation, the Collector, by order dated 08.09.2022, disqualified the petitioner, holding that he had conducted consecutive meetings in a short period without explanation and had not held a meeting at the beginning of the financial year within the first two months. The petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the 1958 Act and noted that the Collector had failed to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the prohibitory orders. The Court observed that the Collector himself had imposed restrictions under Section 144 CrPC, which prevented the holding of Gram Sabha meetings. The Court held that the default was not wilful and that the Collector had acted mechanically. Consequently, the High Court quashed the disqualification order and allowed the petition, restoring the petitioner to his position as Sarpanch and member of the Gram Panchayat.

Headnote

A) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Section 7 read with Section 16 - Failure to hold Gram Sabha meetings - Wilful default - The petitioner, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, was disqualified by the Collector for not conducting four Gram Sabha meetings in the financial year. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to COVID-19 pandemic and prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC. The High Court held that the Collector failed to consider the petitioner's explanation and that the default was not wilful. The disqualification was quashed. (Paras 2-8)

B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 144 - Prohibitory orders - COVID-19 pandemic - Reasonable cause for non-conduct of meetings - The High Court observed that the Collector himself had passed orders under Section 144 CrPC prohibiting gatherings, which prevented the holding of Gram Sabha meetings. Such circumstances constitute reasonable cause and cannot be ignored while disqualifying a Sarpanch. (Paras 3-8)

C) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Section 7(1) - Mandatory requirement to hold Gram Sabha meetings - Interpretation - The provision requires holding of at least four Gram Sabha meetings in a financial year, but the failure must be wilful to attract disqualification. The High Court emphasized that the Collector must consider the reasons for non-compliance and cannot mechanically disqualify. (Paras 4-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the disqualification of the petitioner as a member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat for not conducting at least four Gram Sabha meetings in the financial year is sustainable when the failure was due to COVID-19 pandemic and prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Collector, Jalna, and restored the petitioner to his position as Sarpanch and member of Gram Panchayat Gundewadi. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Disqualification under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
  • 1958 requires wilful default
  • COVID-19 pandemic and prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC constitute reasonable cause for non-conduct of Gram Sabha meetings
  • Collector must consider explanation of Sarpanch before disqualifying
  • Gram Sabha meetings can be held in compliance with COVID-19 protocols.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 17

Writ Petition No.9427 of 2022

2023-02-24

Arun R. Pedneker, J.

Mr. Aniruddha A. Nimbalkar for petitioner; Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, AGP for respondent-State; Mr. D.P. Munde for respondent no.2; Mr. S.G. Kawade for respondent no.3

Manohar s/o Dnyaneshwar Pote

The Collector, Jalna; The Gramsevak, Grampanchayat Office Gundewadi; Sahebrao s/o Balwanta Pote

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging disqualification order passed by Collector under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Collector, Jalna, disqualifying him as a member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gundewadi.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was disqualified for not conducting at least four Gram Sabha meetings in the financial year, despite explaining that the delay was due to COVID-19 pandemic and prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC.

Previous Decisions

The Collector, Jalna, by order dated 08.09.2022, disqualified the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the 1958 Act.

Issues

Whether the disqualification of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for not conducting four Gram Sabha meetings is sustainable when the failure was due to COVID-19 pandemic and prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC. Whether the Collector considered the petitioner's explanation before passing the disqualification order.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the delay in holding Gram Sabha meetings was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC passed by the Collector himself, and thus the default was not wilful. Respondent-State and respondent no.3 supported the Collector's order, contending that the petitioner failed to conduct meetings as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

Disqualification under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 requires wilful default. The Collector must consider the explanation of the Sarpanch, and if the failure to hold Gram Sabha meetings is due to reasonable cause such as COVID-19 pandemic and prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC, the disqualification cannot be sustained.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 – Collector, Jalna under section 7 read with 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and thereby disqualifying the petitioner as a member and Sarpanch of village Panchayat, Gundewadi, for not conducting at least four meetings of the Gram Sabha in the financial year. The Collector held that the petitioner has conducted consecutive meetings in short period without explanation for the same and has also not held one of the meeting at the beginning of the financial year within first two months.

Procedural History

Respondent no.3 filed an application on 22.10.2021 before the Collector seeking disqualification of the petitioner. Collector issued notice on 30.12.2021. Gramsevak submitted report on 11.05.2022. Petitioner filed his say on 14.06.2022. Collector passed disqualification order on 08.09.2022. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9427 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, which was reserved on 02.02.2023 and pronounced on 24.02.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Section 7, Section 16
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 144
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Domicile and Foreign Judgment Res Judicata Case. English Domicile Order Held Valid and Operative as Res Judicata, Requiring Succession to Movable Property Under English Law Rather Than Travancore Ezhava Act.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition of Retired Teachers Seeking Pension Revision Based on 6th Pay Commission. Held that Hakim Committee Recommendations Not Applicable to Teaching Staff and Pre-2006 Retirees Not Entitled to Revised Pension.