Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vilas Bhagwat Jagtap, was elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Mudegaon in October 2017. Due to political rivalry, respondent no. 4, Pravin Shesherao Jagtap, filed a complaint alleging misconduct. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, passed an order on 04.11.2020 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch for his remaining term. The petitioner appealed under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, but the State Minister (Rural Development) dismissed the appeal on 01.11.2021, upholding the removal. The petitioner challenged both orders by way of writ petition. The High Court heard the matter and found that the appellate order did not reflect any consideration of the petitioner's submissions or the grounds raised in the appeal. The court noted that the Minister merely reproduced the allegations and the findings of the Additional Commissioner without applying his mind to the petitioner's contentions. The court held that the appellate order suffers from non-application of mind and is unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 01.11.2021 and remanded the matter to the Minister for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be heard and a reasoned order be passed within three months. The order of removal dated 04.11.2020 was also set aside, and the petitioner was reinstated as Sarpanch, subject to the outcome of the fresh appeal.
Headnote
A) Local Self-Government - Removal of Sarpanch - Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Procedural Violation - The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, was removed by the Additional Commissioner for alleged misconduct. The appellate authority (Minister) upheld the removal without considering the petitioner's submissions. Held that the appellate order suffers from non-application of mind and is unsustainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Appellate Authority's Duty - Natural Justice - The Minister, as appellate authority under Section 39(3) of the Act, must consider the grounds raised in appeal and pass a reasoned order. Failure to do so vitiates the order. Held that the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders of removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch passed by the Additional Commissioner and upheld by the Minister are sustainable in law, particularly when the appellate order does not reflect consideration of the petitioner's submissions and the removal is based on allegations not substantiated.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 01.11.2021 passed by the Minister, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The order of removal dated 04.11.2020 was also set aside, and the petitioner was reinstated as Sarpanch, subject to the outcome of the fresh appeal. The Minister was directed to decide the appeal within three months after hearing the petitioner.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- procedural fairness
- non-application of mind
- appellate authority's duty to consider submissions
- removal of Sarpanch under Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959
