Back
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
Manisha Ravindra Panpatil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Vichkheda situated in Jalgaon District of Maharashtra. She contested in the panchayat elections and won in February, 2021. A dispute subsequently arose between the appellant and respondent nos. 5 to 7 (hereinafter referred as ‘the private respondents’), who sought her disqualification on the ground that she was allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house erected upon government land. The appellant however, had vehemently contended that she does not reside in that particular dwelling, and that she lives separately with her husband and children in a rented accommodation. She further contended that the concerned dwelling was in such a dilapidated condition that it could not be inhabited.
4. However, without appropriately verifying these factual issues and on the basis of bald statements, the concerned Collector passed an order disqualifying the appellant from continuing as Sarpanch. This order was thereafter confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. Subsequently, the High Court vide the impugned order, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition against the C
Removal of woman Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat – Matter of removal of an elected public representative should not be treated so lightly, especially when it concerns women belonging to rural areas.
The removal of an elected Sarpanch without due process and adherence to natural justice principles is impermissible, highlighting the need for respect towards elected representatives.
Disqualification of a Sarpanch requires clear evidence of procedural violations; oral communications are insufficient for disqualification, especially regarding women in public office.
The absence of notice before inspection invalidates the disqualification of a Sarpanch under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, ensuring procedural fairness.
Inconsistency of observations with the facts and circumstances of the case warrants interference and a fresh enquiry.
A Sarpanch removed by a motion of no-confidence is not statutorily barred from contesting a by-election for the same post under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
The duty of the Collector to conduct a proper inquiry and decide on disqualification within a specified time frame, following the principles of natural justice and fair play.
The court ruled that the inquiry against the Sarpanch was not conducted in accordance with law, and the appellant's qualifications were valid, thus upholding her election.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
