Bombay High Court Upholds Summary Nature of Disqualification Enquiry Under Section 16 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act; Rejects Member's Claim for Cross-Examination of Talathi. The Court held that a member facing disqualification for encroachment is only entitled to a reasonable opportunity of hearing and cannot convert the summary enquiry into an adversarial one by seeking oral evidence and cross-examination.

Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of Additional Collector rejecting the petitioner's application for cross-examination of Talathi in a disqualification enquiry under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

The petitioner sought quashing of order dated 28/8/2020 and remand to Additional Collector for fresh adjudication of application dated 31/7/2020 with permission to cross-examine Talathi S.N. Tiwari.

The Additional Collector rejected the application for cross-examination, holding that since the Tahsildar had given his report on the basis of the Talathi's report, there was no need for cross-examination; the petitioner believed the Talathi's report was incorrect and measurement was done behind his back.

The Additional Collector, Nagpur, by order dated 28/8/2020 in Case No. 53/M.V.P.14(1)(J-3)/2018-19 rejected the petitioner's applications dated 25/10/2019 and 31/7/2020.

Whether in a disqualification enquiry under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, the member facing disqualification has a right to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses such as the Talathi.

Petitioner argued that proceedings before the Collector suffered from misjoinder of parties and causes of action because eight persons were accused jointly of encroachment, each requiring separate hearing. Petitioner contended that the right to cross-examine the Talathi who prepared the encroachment report was essential because the report was relied upon to unseat him, and the measurement was conducted behind his back. Respondent no.4 argued that the enquiry under Section 16 is summary and cannot be converted into an adversarial enquiry requiring evidence and cross-examination; Section 16(2) requires disposal within 60 days and only reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assistant Government Pleader relied on Sections 153(2) and 39(1) to show that where the legislature intended adversarial enquiry, it expressly provided powers; Section 16 has no such provision, indicating summary nature.

The proviso to Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 provides only for a reasonable opportunity of being heard in a disqualification enquiry; the enquiry is summary and not adversarial, so the person facing disqualification has no right to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses. Where the legislature intends an adversarial enquiry, it expressly empowers evidence-taking as in Section 153(2), but no such power exists in Section 16.

A bare reading of the proviso to Section 16(2) of the M.V.P. Act, would indicate that while conducting an enquiry regarding a plea of disqualification, the same is required to be done by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person, against whom, the plea of being disqualified has been raised. This is the only nature and scope of any right, which can be claimed by the person facing the enquiry, which is clearly limited in nature. The enquiry, therefore is clearly summary in nature, and the right of the person facing the same is restricted of being given an opportunity of being heard and nothing else. The word "summary" in Mohan Lal Vs. Kartar Singh (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 684, has been held to mean a short and quick procedure

The original applicant Smt. Shashikala Dhyaneshwar Thakare filed an application before the Additional Collector under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 alleging disqualification of eight members of Gram Panchayat Isasani for encroachment on government land. The petitioner, as original respondent no.2, filed applications dated 25/10/2019 and 31/7/2020 seeking return of appeal on misjoinder and permission to cross-examine Talathi. By order dated 28/8/2020 in Case No. 53/M.V.P.14(1)(J-3)/2018-19, the Additional Collector rejected both applications. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 3088 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench challenging the order.

• Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: 14, 16, 16(2), 39(1), 153(2)