Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Sau. Sunita Pruthaviraj Meshram, was the duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tekadi (Coal-Mine), Parseoni, Nagpur, elected from the Scheduled Caste category for a term of five years expiring in 2022. Following a complaint from some members, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) directed the Block Development Officer (BDO) to conduct an enquiry. Based on the BDO's preliminary report, the CEO allegedly conducted an enquiry under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 with permission of the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner then removed the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch acting upon the report submitted by the CEO. The Petitioner's appeal under Section 39(3) of the Act was dismissed by the Minister. The Petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court. The Court found that the CEO had no authority to conduct the enquiry under Section 39(1) as the power is vested in the Commissioner, and there was no delegation of such power to the CEO. Additionally, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before the removal order was passed, violating principles of natural justice. The Court held that the enquiry was without jurisdiction and the removal order was illegal. Consequently, the appellate order was also set aside. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and restored the Petitioner to the office of Sarpanch.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Removal of Sarpanch - Section 39(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Enquiry by CEO without delegation - The Petitioner, a Sarpanch, was removed based on an enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who had no authority to conduct the enquiry under Section 39(1) as the power is vested in the Commissioner. The CEO acted without any delegation of power from the Commissioner. The Court held that the enquiry was without jurisdiction and the removal order was illegal. (Paras 5-7)
B) Panchayat Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 39(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The Petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before the removal order was passed. The Court held that the principles of natural justice require that the affected party be heard before an adverse order is passed. The failure to provide such opportunity vitiates the removal order. (Paras 5-7)
C) Panchayat Law - Appellate Order - Section 39(3) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The appellate authority (Minister) dismissed the appeal without considering the procedural irregularities in the enquiry. The Court held that the appellate order is also unsustainable as it failed to address the jurisdictional error. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the removal of the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is valid when the enquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer without proper delegation and without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Minister, and restored the Petitioner to the office of Sarpanch.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Enquiry under Section 39(1) must be conducted by the Commissioner or delegated authority
- Opportunity of hearing mandatory before removal
- CEO cannot conduct enquiry without delegation
- Appellate authority must consider procedural irregularities
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (02) 122
Writ Petition No.4074 of 2021
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Shri Ganesh Mate for Petitioner; Shri A.M. Kadukar for Respondent Nos.1 & 2; Shri I.S. Charlewar for Respondent No.3; Shri P.J. Mehta for Respondent No.5; Shri A.A. Naik for Respondent No.6
Sau. Sunita Pruthaviraj Meshram
State of Maharashtra through its Hon. Minister of Rural Development, Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nagpur, Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Parseoni, Gram Panchayat Tekadi through its Secretary, Sau. Minkshi Surendra Budhe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the removal of the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the dismissal of her appeal under Section 39(3) of the said Act.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner removing her as Sarpanch and the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Minister dismissing her appeal, and restoration to the office of Sarpanch.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch based on an enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who had no authority to conduct the enquiry under Section 39(1) of the Act, and without affording her an opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Commissioner removed the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch on 02.08.2021. The Minister dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on 05.10.2021.
Issues
Whether the enquiry under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 conducted by the Chief Executive Officer was without jurisdiction?
Whether the Petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing before the removal order, violating principles of natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that the CEO had no authority to conduct the enquiry under Section 39(1) as the power is vested in the Commissioner and there was no delegation of such power to the CEO.
The Petitioner argued that she was not given any opportunity of hearing before the removal order was passed, violating principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The power to conduct an enquiry under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is vested in the Commissioner. The Chief Executive Officer cannot conduct such enquiry without proper delegation of power from the Commissioner. Additionally, the principles of natural justice require that the affected party be given an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed. Failure to provide such opportunity renders the removal order illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner challenges the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 - Additional Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the order dated 5.10.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1 – Minister rejecting the appeal preferred by the Petitioner under Section 39(3) of the said Act.
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.3 had not conducted enquiry under Section 39(1) of the said Act. He submits that the C.E.O. has not applied his mind independently, but has based the findings on the pr
Procedural History
The Petitioner was elected Sarpanch. Following a complaint, the CEO directed the BDO to conduct an enquiry. Based on the BDO's report, the CEO conducted an enquiry under Section 39(1) with permission of the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner removed the Petitioner on 02.08.2021. The Petitioner appealed under Section 39(3) to the Minister, who dismissed the appeal on 05.10.2021. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Section 39(1), Section 39(3)
