JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20th July, 2000, passed by the respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers under section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), and the order dated 28th August 2000, passed by the respondent No. 6 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of the respondent No. 1 was dismissed.

3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that:

(a) The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Village Thorgawhan (Taluka: Yawal, District : Jalgaon), on 24th August, 1998. A dispute sought to be raised by the respondent No. 3, as regards, the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch which was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon, by order dated 29th December, 1998. A no confidence motion was then moved by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against the petitioner. But the same was rejected in the meeting of the Panchayat held on 7th April, 1999.

(b) A complaint was received by the Deput Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, against the petitioner. In April 2000, whereupon the respondent No. 1 directed the Deputy Chief Executive Officer to enquire into the matter and to submit a report.

(c) Further by orders dated 29-4-2000 and 3-5-2000, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, authorised the Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Yawal, to hold enquiry into the matter and the Block Development Officer, on such enquiry being held, submitted his report on 12th May, 2000.

(d) Based on the said report, the Chief Executive Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, as to why action proposed should not be taken under section 39(1) of the said Act. Thereupon the petitioner filed his reply on 15th June, 2000. But the same was followed by a resolution by the Standing Committee on 15th July 2000 to the effect that the petitioner should be removed from the office of the Sarpanch. The same was followed by the order dated 20th July, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner was sought to be removed from the office of Sarpanch of the said village and was further restrained from contesting the election for the membership of the Panchayat for 5 years purportedly in exercise of powers under section 39(2) of the said Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same was dismissed on 28th August, 2000. Hence the present petition.

4. While assailing the impugned orders, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that an order by the President of Zilla Parishad, directing the Chief Executive Officer to hold necessary enquiry and consequent enquiry by the Chief Executive Officer, are the prerequisites for an action to be taken under section 39 of the said Act, and the respondent herein having failed to comply with the said prerequisites, the orders passed by the respondent are bad in law. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the provisions contained in section 39 are mandatory in nature and they are to be strictly construed as well as complied with by the authorities seeking to take action under the said provision of law, and in the case at hand, the respondent having failed to observe the mandate of the said provisions of law have acted illegally while passing the impugned order, rendering it bad in law. Reliance is sought to be placed on various decisions in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondents have sought to justify the action contending that the Chief Executive Officer is duly empowered to delegate his powers to his subordinate officers and, therefore, no fault can be found with the enquiry conducted by the Block Development Officer who was duly empowered in that behalf by the Chief Executive Officer and hence there is substantial compliance of the provisions of s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document