The discretion vested in an authority under a statute must be exercised judicially and reasonably, and the authority is required to apply its mind to the facts of the case and give the other party an opportunity to show cause before passing an adverse order.

Headnote:
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT - SUSPENSION OF SARPANCH - SECTION 41 (1) OF THE BOMBAY VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT, 1958 - DISCRETION OF THE COLLECTOR - EXERCISE OF - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - ORDER OF SUSPENSION QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Sarpanch of a Village Panchayat, was suspended from office by the Collector under section 41 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on the ground that two criminal cases had been launched against him. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that it was passed without giving him an opportunity to show cause, that the Collector had not applied his mind to the facts of the case, and that section 41 (1) was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Collector had not exercised his discretion judicially and had acted as an automaton merely on receipt of a report from the Police Sub-Inspector. The Court also held that the Collector had not applied his mind to the facts of the case and had not given the petitioner an opportunity to show cause before passing the order of suspension. The Court further held that section 41 (1) of the Act was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had exercised his discretion judicially in passing the order of suspension? 2. Whether the Collector had applied his mind to the facts of the case before passing the order of suspension? 3. Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause before the order of suspension was passed? 4. Whether section 41 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The discretion vested in the Collector under section 41 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. 2. The Collector is required to apply his mind to the facts of the case before passing an order of suspension under section 41 (1) of the Act. 3. The petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to show cause before an order of suspension is passed against him under section 41 (1) of the Act. 4. Section 41 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of suspension and made the rule absolute.

JUDGMENT

NAIK J. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order of the Collector of Nasik dated July 13,1978 purporting to have been passed under section 41 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, suspending the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat of Agashkhinde, taluka Sinnar, district Nasik. In the absence of any affidavit in reply being filed, the undisputed facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these: There is a village Panchayat for Agashkhinde village in the Sinnar taluka of the Nasik district constituted under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. There are three wards in this village. There are ten numbers elected to the respondent No. 3 Panchayat, out of whom two belonged to the Scheduled Tribes, three belonged to the Harijan community and the remaining five belonged to the other communities. There is a constant rivalry between two groups - One group consisting of the Harijans and the other group consisting of all the other communities put together. The petitioner has been a member, of respondent No.3 Panchayat since the year 1971. He was the Sarpanch in 1971-72 for about nine months. In January, 1978, because of the steps taken by the petitioner, the then Sarpanch and the Deputy Sarpanch, both of whom belonged to the Harijan community, were dislodged from their respective offices as a result of a vote of no confidence. Thereafter the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. In April, 1978, fresh elections were held. After the elections, elections were held for the offices of the Sarpanch and the Deputy Sarpanch, and they being contested between the two groups, the petitioner succeeded in being re-elected as the Sarpanch.

2. The petitioner's contention is that having regard to the long standing rivalry between the Harijan group on the one side and the other group of the Panchayat on the other, and the fact that the petitioner wail responsible for dislodging in January, 1978, the Harijan Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch by getting the Panchayat to pass a no confidence motion against them, the Harijan community, including the elected members of the Panchayat, ate out to take revange against him. It is further his version that one Chaitram Pimple, Gram Sevak of respondent No.3, who is also a Harijan is hostile to the petitioner and it is his complaint, that the Harijan members of the Panchayat and the said Gram Sevak have together conspired to dislodge him from the office of the Sarpanch to which he was elected in April, 1978.

3. It is as against that background, complains the petitioner, that in about March. 1978, one Hari Bapu Tribhavane lodged a complaint against the petitioner and one Malhari Barkale, alleging inter alia that when the complainant had been to the hotel to purchase Beedi, the petitioner and the said Barkale abused the complainant. The second complaint was lodged against the petitioner on 9th May, 1978 by the Gram Sevak of respondent No.3, wherein the said Gram Sevak alleged that on or about 4th October, 1977 during the meeting of respondent No.3 Panchayat the petitioner abused him. After receipt of these complaints, it appears that the Police Sub-Inspector, Sinnar, by his letter dated July 11, 1978 reported to the Collector that two criminal cases had been launched against the petitioner and that charge-sheets had been sent to the Court on March 9, 1978 and May 6, 1978 respectively under section 7 of the India Defence Act. The petitioner's grievance is that the sole object of the said false complaints was to dislodge him from the office of the Sat panch of respondent No 3 Village Panchayat. It further appears that on receipt of the said report, the Collector passed the impugned order on July 13, 1978 in purported exercise of the powers under section 41 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, suspending the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch till the decision of the cases launched against him. It is the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document