Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
Salimbi Mubarak Tamboli - Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10956 of 2018
Decided On : 12-03-2019
Village Panchayat Act - Section 36 - Bombay Village Panchayat Rules, 1959 - Rules 4, 5 and 6 - Post of Sarpanch - Members of Panchayat – Election conducted - Whether and solely liable for conducting monthly meetings or whether responsibility lies on Sarpanch and in his absence parpanch - Whether negligence or laxity on part of his duties in the village Panchayat can be construed to be a justifiable reason for failure on part of Sarpanch in monthly meetings - Whether mandate of holding a monthly meeting of village panchayat is cast on Sarpanch under section 36 of Village Panchayat Act or responsibility is cast upon Village Development Officer who is commonly known as Secretary under Rules 4, 5 and 6 of Panchayat Rules, 1959 - Petitioner was elected as the Member of - Post of Sarpanch for said Panchayat was reserved for category and petitioner was only candidate who belonged to said category was elected as Sarpanch, unopposed - Sarpanch lodged a complaint with District Collector that petitioner did not convene meetings for of August and - Impugned order passed by District Collector petitioner has been disqualified - Contention of the petitioner Sarpanch is was continuously remaining absent and was irregular in his duties - He was negligent - He did not call for a monthly meeting in account of the complaint of Sarpanch that was removed and was appointed in his place - In suffered an accident and his leg was fractured - He was on leave therefore contended that no fault lies with the Sarpanch and as such she cannot be held to be guilty of having failed in conducting two monthly meetings - It is further contended that petitioner had issued a Notice to calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be punished for having neglected his duties - On account of such complaint was transferred and this would indicate that petitioner was not at fault - It is strenuously canvassed that proviso to section 36 mandates an inquiry as to whether Sarpanch had any justifiable cause for not holding monthly meetings – Held, Court find an answer in Judgment delivered by this Court in matter of Court was considering issue of failure on part of the Sarpanch in convening monthly meeting - Placing reliance upon another Judgment of learned Division Bench in matter of Special Civil Application was concluded that Rule 3 casts a compulsory obligation in connection with holding at least one meeting of panchayat in every month - It was further concluded that monthly meeting of panchayat, under above Rule can be convened only by Sarpanch and in his absence by - Obligation under Rule could therefore be discharged only by action of convening meeting of panchayat, by Sarpanch and in his absence by - Sufficiency of reasons for failing to conduct such a meeting can be considered to assess as to whether Sarpanch had a frivolous or a lame excuse or whether he was precluded by such reasons which would convince any prudent person that it was beyond his control to convene such monthly meeting - In matter of others - Writ petition concluded that reason cited by said petitioner that there was a death in family and hence meeting was adjourned and was never held in said month was not a unconvincing reason - It was also recorded that in so far as meeting was concerned same was adjourned without transacting any business and there was no material to indicate that it was subsequently held - In similar circumstances in matter of Writ Aurangabad Bench this Court concluded that merely because Election Commission imposed code of conduct would not be a sufficient cause for not holding a meeting in month of when monthly meeting was held notwithstanding imposition of code of conduct - It was further held that there was no provision suggesting that without permission of State Election Commission such a monthly meeting mandated by law could not have been held – Petition dismissed
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forth-with and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
3. The issue raised in this petition by the disqualified Sarpanch is, as to whether the mandate of holding a monthly meeting of the village panchayat is cast on the Sarpanch under section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act or the responsibility is cast upon the Village Development Officer, who is commonly known as the Secretary under Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959.
4. The petitioner was elected as the Member of the Grampanchayat Savargaon (Dere), Tq. Bhoom, District: Osmanabad, in 2015. Since the post of Sarpanch for the said Panchayat was reserved for the OBC category and the petitioner was the only candidate who belonged to the said category, she was elected as the Sarpanch, unopposed.
5. The Upasarpanch lodged a complaint with the District Collector, that the petitioner did not convene the Grampanchayat monthly meetings for the months of August and November, 2017. By the Impugned order dated 20.8.2018, passed by the District Collector, the petitioner has been disqualified.
6. The contention of the petitioner Sarpanch is that, the Gramsevak Mr. N.S. Jadhavar was continuously remaining absent and was irregular in his duties. He was negligent. He did not call for a monthly meeting in August, 2017. It was on account of the complaint of the Sarpanch that the Gramsevak was removed and another Gramsevak Viz. Shri Tapure was appointed in his place. In November, 2017 Mr. Tapure suffered an accident and his leg was fractured. He was on leave from 23.11.2017 till 3.12.2017. It is, therefore, contended that, no fault lies with the Sarpanch and as such, she cannot be held to be guilty of having failed in conducting two monthly meetings.
7. It is further contended that, the petitioner had issued a Notice to the Gramsevak, calling upon him to explain as to why, he should not be punished for having neglected his duties. On account of such complaint, the Gramsevak was transferred and this would indicate that, the petitioner was not at fault. It is strenuously canvassed that the proviso to section 36 mandates an inquiry as to whether the Sarpanch had any justifiable cause for not holding the monthly meetings.
8. The Learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 Zilha Parishad and respondent No.4 Upasarpanch, support the Judgment of the District Collector. It is their contention that, if the Rules and Section 36 of the Act are considered, unless the petitioner indicates a justifiable cause, she will have to be held guilty for having failed in conducting the monthly meetings of the panchayat.
9. In view of the above, I find that the following two issues need adjudication:-
(a) Whether the Gramsevak is wholly and solely liable for conducting the monthly meetings or whether the responsibility lies on the Sarpanch and in his absence the Upasarpanch ?
(b) Whether negligence or laxity on the part of the Gramsevak in discharging his duties in the village Panchayat can be construed to be a justifiable reason for the failure on the part of the Sarpanch in holding grampanchayat monthly meetings ?
10. Section 36 along with the proviso reads as under:-
"36. Time and place of sitting of panchayat and procedure at meetings:- The time and place of sitting, and the procedure at a meeting, of the panchayat shall be such as may be prescribed:
Provided that, if the Sarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch, fails without sufficient cause, to convene the meetings of the panachayat in any financial year according to the rules prescribed in that behalf, he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of the terms of office of the members of the Panchayat. The decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was sufficient cause shall be final.
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
