Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Sau. Shubhangi Sharad Gondhali, was elected as a member of the Revdanda Grampanchayat in June 2013 and subsequently elected as Sarpanch on 27 July 2013. The Respondent No.1, Sonali Santosh More, also a member, filed a complaint on 21 August 2015 alleging that the Petitioner had misappropriated Grampanchayat funds by collecting taxes from villagers but not depositing them into the Grampanchayat account, instead using the money for personal purposes. The complaint sought action under Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act (now Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act), 1958. The Tahasildar conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 28 September 2015 confirming the allegations. Based on this, the Collector issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 30 September 2015. The Petitioner submitted a reply on 12 October 2015 denying the allegations. The Collector, by order dated 1 February 2016, removed the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act. The Petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on 1 February 2016. The Petitioner then filed a further appeal to the Minister, Rural Development, who also dismissed the appeal on 9 March 2016, confirming the removal. The Petitioner challenged the Minister's order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The Court examined the material on record, including the Tahasildar's report and the Petitioner's reply, and found that the Petitioner had admitted to collecting taxes but not depositing them, and had used the money for personal expenses. The Court held that the findings of misappropriation were based on evidence and were not perverse. The Court also noted that the Petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to present her case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the removal.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act - Removal of Sarpanch - Section 39 - Misappropriation of Funds - The Petitioner, a Sarpanch, was removed for misappropriating Grampanchayat funds by collecting taxes but not depositing them and using the money for personal purposes. The Court held that the findings of the Minister were based on material on record and not perverse, and the removal was justified. (Paras 1-13) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Perversity - The Court reiterated that in writ jurisdiction, it does not sit as an appellate authority and can only interfere if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Court found no perversity in the Minister's order. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Minister removing the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, is sustainable in law and whether the findings of misappropriation are perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Minister removing the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch.
Law Points
- Section 39 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
- 1958
- Misappropriation of funds
- Removal of Sarpanch
- Natural justice
- Perversity of findings
- Scope of writ jurisdiction
