Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, elected Sarpanch of Hiware Village Panchayat, sought removal of Respondent Nos. 5 (Up-Sarpanch) and 6 (Member) under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, alleging misconduct. Following an inquiry, the Divisional Commissioner found them guilty of proposing and supporting an illegal resolution to transfer the Sarpanch's statutory signing authority to the Up-Sarpanch and of obstructing expenditure on welfare schemes, and consequently removed them from office. In appeal under Section 39(3), the Minister set aside the removal on the ground that the impugned resolution had not been implemented and the misconduct was not serious enough to warrant removal. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the Minister had failed to properly consider the findings of the Divisional Commissioner and had ignored the wrongful intention and consequences of the respondents' conduct. The Court held that the deliberate attempt to divest the Sarpanch of powers vested by law constituted grave misconduct under Section 39(1). Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the Minister's order was quashed and set aside, and the Divisional Commissioner's order removing Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was restored.
Headnote
A. Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – Section 39(1) – Removal of Up-Sarpanch and Member – Misconduct
Passing a resolution to transfer the statutory signing and executive authority of the Sarpanch to the Up-Sarpanch, despite clear legal prohibition under Sections 38 and 57 of the Act and despite caution by the Village Development Officer, constitutes grave misconduct. Such conduct demonstrates a deliberate attempt to usurp the lawful powers of the elected Sarpanch and attracts action under Section 39(1).
B. Misconduct – Whether Actual Implementation Necessary
Actual implementation of an illegal resolution is not a prerequisite for establishing misconduct. The wrongful intention, illegal objective, and consequential obstruction of Panchayat administration are relevant factors. An unlawful attempt to divest a Sarpanch of statutory authority itself amounts to misconduct.
C. Appellate Authority – Duty to Record Reasons
An appellate authority exercising statutory powers must independently consider the findings and reasons recorded by the original authority. An order setting aside removal merely by observing that the misconduct was "not serious" without proper analysis suffers from non-application of mind and is unsustainable.
D. Elected Representatives – Removal from Office
Though removal of an elected representative requires strict compliance with statutory provisions and proof of misconduct, where the material establishes a deliberate and unlawful attempt to undermine statutory governance and paralyze Panchayat functioning, removal under Section 39 is justified.
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of Consideration was whether the Minister's order setting aside the removal of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from their posts as Up-Sarpanch and Member of Village Panchayat under Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959 was legally sustainable under Article 227 of Constitution of India
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the Minister's order dated 19 August 2025 could not be sustained.
Law Points
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959
- Section 39(3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959
- Section 38 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959
- Section 57 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959
- Rule 9 of Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules 1959
- Scope of judicial review under Article 227
- Principles of natural justice
- Standard of proof for misconduct under Section 39
- Interpretation of statutory provisions for removal of panchayat members
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 108
Writ Petition No. 12667 of 2025
Ms. Kirthika i/by Mr. Pratik Deshmukh for Petitioner, Smt. Vaishali Nimbalkar AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Pandurang Gaikwad (Patil) for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Drupad Patil i/by Mr. Namit Pansare for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
Sau. Poonam Bharat Kudale
The State of Maharashtra, Through Minister of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra; Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune; Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune; Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samittee, Purandar; Ramdas Dattatray Kudale; Sagar Shivaji Kudale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging an administrative order in a panchayat dispute.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Minister's order setting aside removal of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and restore Divisional Commissioner's removal order
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that Minister erred in allowing appeal and setting aside removal of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for misconduct under Section 39(1) of MVP Act
Previous Decisions
Divisional Commissioner ordered removal on 31 December 2024; Minister set aside removal on 19 August 2025
Issues
Whether the Minister's order setting aside removal under Section 39(3) of MVP Act was legally sustainable under Article 227 of Constitution of India
Whether the alleged misconduct warranted removal under Section 39(1) of MVP Act
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Minister erred in finding misconduct insufficient for removal
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 argued that Minister correctly held misconduct not severe under Section 39
Ratio Decidendi
Passing a resolution to transfer the statutory executive and signing powers of a Sarpanch to an Up-Sarpanch, despite being informed that such action is contrary to Sections 38 and 57 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, constitutes misconduct under Section 39(1). Actual implementation of the illegal resolution is not necessary where the conduct demonstrates a deliberate and unlawful attempt to usurp the powers of the elected Sarpanch. An appellate authority exercising powers under Section 39(3) must properly consider the findings of the Divisional Commissioner and assign adequate reasons. An order setting aside removal without addressing the gravity, intent, and consequences of the misconduct suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 deliberately proposed and supported an illegal resolution to transfer the Sarpanch's statutory authority to the Up-Sarpanch.
The resolution was passed despite the Village Development Officer warning that it was contrary to law.
The respondents further obstructed welfare expenditure by linking it to approval of the illegal resolution.
The Minister failed to appreciate the wrongful intent and consequences of the conduct.
The Minister's order dated 19 August 2025 was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
The Divisional Commissioner's order dated 31 December 2024 removing Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 under Section 39(1) was restored.
Procedural History
Petitioner elected Sarpanch of Hiware Village Panchayat — Dispute filed before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 — Inquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, who submitted a report on 29 July 2024 — Divisional Commissioner ordered removal of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 31 December 2024 — Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Section 39(3) — Minister, Rural Development and Panchayatraj, allowed the appeal and set aside the removal order on 19 August 2025 — Petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 12667 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Minister's order — High Court allowed the writ petition on 25 February 2026 and restored the Divisional Commissioner's removal order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959: Section 39(1), Section 39(3), Section 38, Section 57
- Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules 1959: Rule 9
