Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mangal Mahadu Korde, was elected as Sarpanch of Wakalwadi Village Panchayat in 2021. Respondent No.5, a member of the Panchayat, lodged a complaint alleging irregularities and misconduct. After a preliminary inquiry by the Block Development Officer and a subsequent inquiry by the Chief Executive Officer, a report dated 18 March 2024 was submitted to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, indicating various acts of omission and commission, including execution of works without tender process and cash transactions without accounting rules. The Divisional Commissioner, after hearing the parties, by order dated 3 July 2024, declined to remove the Petitioner, opining that though there were irregularities, there was no misappropriation of funds. Respondent No.5 appealed to the State Government under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The Minister, Rural Development, allowed the appeal and removed the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch by order dated 8 May 2025. The Petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the State Government, while exercising appellate powers, failed to provide a personal hearing to the Petitioner and did not record reasons for differing with the findings of the Divisional Commissioner. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 39(3) is quasi-judicial and must be exercised in accordance with principles of natural justice. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the State Government for fresh consideration after affording a personal hearing to the Petitioner and passing a reasoned order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Personal Hearing - Section 39(3) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - The appellate authority under Section 39(3) must provide a personal hearing to the affected Sarpanch before reversing the order of the Divisional Commissioner, as the removal from office has serious civil consequences. Held that failure to grant personal hearing vitiates the appellate order. (Paras 10-15) B) Administrative Law - Reasoned Order - Appellate Authority - Section 39(3) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - The appellate order must be a reasoned order, disclosing application of mind and reasons for differing with the findings of the primary authority. Held that a cryptic order without reasons is unsustainable. (Paras 16-20) C) Local Self-Government - Sarpanch - Removal - Section 39(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - The power to remove a Sarpanch under Section 39(1) is quasi-judicial and must be exercised only on grounds of misconduct or persistent default. The appellate authority under Section 39(3) must independently assess the evidence. Held that the State Government's order was set aside for non-compliance with natural justice. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government, while exercising appellate powers under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, can reverse the order of the Divisional Commissioner without affording a personal hearing to the affected Sarpanch and without recording reasons for differing with the findings of the Commissioner.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 8 May 2025 passed by the State Government, and remanded the matter to the State Government for fresh consideration after affording a personal hearing to the Petitioner and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- personal hearing
- reasoned order
- appellate jurisdiction
- Section 39 Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
- 1959
