Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the disqualification of the Sarpanch of village Kanalda under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for not holding the monthly meeting for October 2021. The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, challenged the Collector's order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Dispute Application No. 66 of 2022, which disqualified him after a fresh enquiry following an earlier remand by the High Court. Initially, the Collector had disqualified the petitioner by order dated 12.09.2022, but the High Court in Writ Petition No.10504 of 2022 set aside that order on 11.10.2022, finding it perverse because the Collector failed to consider relevant material, including the report of the Block Development Officer which highlighted that the substitute Village Development Officer avoided taking charge. The matter was remanded for fresh enquiry with directions to follow natural justice. On remand, the Collector again disqualified the petitioner by the impugned order, reasoning that the petitioner could have held the meeting between 01.10.2021 and 10.10.2021 before the Village Development Officer went on medical leave from 11.10.2021, and could have made correspondence earlier than 29.10.2021 or held the meeting in the first week of November. The petitioner contended that there was no automatic disqualification under Section 36; disqualification requires absence of sufficient cause. He argued that the Village Development Officer's sudden medical leave and the non-joining of the substitute officer constituted sufficient cause, and that he had informed the Block Development Officer and Chief Executive Officer of the administrative impasse. The petitioner also pointed out that the Collector's order relied on a prior decision in Salimbi Mubarak Tamboli v. State of Maharashtra, which affirmed disqualification for non-cooperation of Gram Sevak, but distinguished his case on facts. The High Court had yet to pronounce its final decision in the present writ petition; the available text ends mid-argument, with no operative order or ratio decidendi recorded.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Failure to hold monthly meeting - Section 36 - Collector disqualified petitioner for not holding October 2021 meeting, finding deliberate failure as Village Development Officer was present from 01.10.2021 to 10.10.2021 and petitioner made correspondence only on 29.10.2021; earlier High Court in Writ Petition No.10504 of 2022 set aside first disqualification order as perverse for not considering relevant material and remanded for fresh enquiry (Paras 1,3,6).
B) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Sufficient Cause - Medical leave of Village Development Officer - Section 36 - Petitioner argued Village Development Officer went on medical leave from 11.10.2021 and substitute did not take charge, thus there was sufficient cause for not holding meeting; Collector held petitioner could have held meeting in first week of November but did not, indicating deliberate failure (Paras 3,4,5,6).
C) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Natural Justice and Consideration of Evidence - Section 36 - Earlier High Court held Collector's first order perverse because he ignored specific contentions and report of Block Development Officer highlighting substitute VDO avoiding charge; proceedings remanded with direction to follow natural justice; present petition challenges whether fresh order considered all material (Paras 3,6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Collector's order dated 12.01.2023 disqualifying the petitioner as Sarpanch under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for not holding the October 2021 monthly meeting is valid, particularly whether there was sufficient cause due to absence of Village Development Officer and whether the Collector considered all relevant material and applied correct legal principles.
Law Points
- Section 36 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959 disqualifies Sarpanch for not holding monthly meeting without sufficient cause
- No automatic disqualification under Section 36
- Collector must consider all relevant material and follow natural justice
- Sarpanch responsible for convening monthly meeting
- Secretary cannot convene meeting
- Upa-Sarpanch to convene only in absence of Sarpanch
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 16
WRIT PETITION NO.1023 OF 2023
Mr. Patil Jitendra V., Mr. N. T. Bhagat, Mr. Atmaram J. Patil, Mr. D. P. Palodkar h/f. Mr. Paresh B. Patil (Borse)
Pundlik S/o Tulashiram Sapkale
State of Maharashtra, District Collector Jalgaon, Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Jalgaon, Extension Officer (Gram Panchayat) Panchayat Samiti Jalgaon, Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Jalgaon, Rupali W/o Ananda Sapkale and other elected members of Gram Panchayat Kanalda, Village Development Officer Office of Gram Panchayat Kanalda
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the Collector's order disqualifying the petitioner as Sarpanch under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for not holding the monthly meeting of October 2021.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute Application No. 66 of 2022 and restoration of his position as Sarpanch.
Filing Reason
The Collector disqualified the petitioner on the ground that he deliberately failed to hold the monthly meeting for October 2021, despite the petitioner's contention that the Village Development Officer was on medical leave and the substitute officer did not take charge.
Previous Decisions
Initially, the Collector passed an order dated 12.09.2022 disqualifying the petitioner. The High Court in Writ Petition No.10504 of 2022 set aside that order on 11.10.2022 as perverse and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. After remand, the Collector passed the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 disqualifying the petitioner again.
Issues
Whether the Collector's order dated 12.01.2023 disqualifying the Sarpanch under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is valid.
Whether there was sufficient cause for not holding the October 2021 monthly meeting due to the absence of the Village Development Officer on medical leave and the non-joining of the substitute.
Whether the Collector considered all relevant material and followed principles of natural justice in the fresh enquiry.
Whether Section 36 provides for automatic disqualification or only upon absence of sufficient cause.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was not aware the Village Development Officer would go on leave from 11.10.2021 and that all prior and subsequent meetings were held after the 15th of each month.
Petitioner contended he made communications to Block Development Officer and Chief Executive Officer about the non-availability of Village Development Officer and the impairment of administration.
Petitioner submitted that the substitute officer appointed on 27.10.2021 did not take charge, thus making it impossible to hold the meeting.
Petitioner argued that Section 36 does not provide for automatic disqualification; disqualification occurs only if there is no sufficient cause.
Collector held that the petitioner could have held the meeting between 01.10.2021 and 10.10.2021 before the Village Development Officer went on medical leave, and could have taken permission earlier or held the meeting in the first week of November, indicating deliberate failure.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 12.01.2023, passed by the learned Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute Application No. 66 of 2022, wherein the Petitioner - Sarpanch of village Kanalda was disqualified under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for not holding the monthly meeting for the month of October 2021.
The Petitioner further submits that in Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 there is no automatic disqualification if the monthly meeting is not held. Disqualification is incurred only if there is “no sufficient cause” to hold the meetings.
Procedural History
Petitioner elected as Sarpanch of village Kanalda. Respondents 6 to 16 filed Grampanchayat Dispute Application No.66 of 2022 before the Collector alleging failure to convene the October 2021 monthly meeting. Collector passed order dated 12.09.2022 disqualifying the petitioner. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10504 of 2022; High Court by judgment dated 11.10.2022 set aside the Collector's order as perverse and remanded for fresh enquiry with directions to follow natural justice. After remand, Collector passed impugned order dated 12.01.2023 disqualifying the petitioner again. Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition No.1023 of 2023 challenging the fresh disqualification order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Section 36, Section 7(11)
- Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959: Rules 4, 5, 6
