The judgment established the importance of recording reasons, adherence to statutory timelines, and the need for application of mind in quasi-judicial decisions, emphasizing procedural fairness and natural justice in cases involving removal of elected officials.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. - Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned advocates for the respondents waive service. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner was a directly elected President of Municipal Council, Omerga. He is challenging decision of the State Government taken under Section 55(1) and 55A, 55B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter the Act) and disqualifying her from becoming a Councillor for a period of 6 years.

3. On a complaint dated 27.10.2020 of some of the Councillors made to the respondent Collector, regarding various misdeeds of the petitioner, the Collector Osmanabad appointed a committee headed by Chief Officer of the Municipal Council Kallamb to enquire into the allegations, by his order dated 31.12.2020. The committee conducted an enquiry and submitted its report on 27.03.2021. In turn the Collector Osmanabad by his letter dated 3.6.2021 forwarded the report to the State Government soliciting appropriate action. The State Government served a notice to the petitioner in response to which she submitted her reply and thereupon the impugned order was passed holding her guilty of following acts which can be broadly described as under:

[i] Misusing the powers under Section 58(2) of the Act for misappropriating amount by awarding tenders without following the prescribed procedure.

[ii] Failure to undertake technical inspection and quality check in respect of the works that were undertaken exceeding the expenditure of Rs. 10 lakh.

[iii] Inspite of resolution passed by the Municipal Council appointing two persons as law officers was cancelled by the Collector, allowed them to illegally continue to function.

[iv] Floating tenders, awarding contracts and making payments without following the Government orders.

4. The learned senior Advocate Mr. V.D. Sapkal for the petitioner at the outset fairly concedes that though in the grounds averred in the petition a dispute is raised regarding applicability of the provisions of Sections 55(1) and 55(1)(3) of the Act, he is not pressing that issue and there is no illegality in invoking those provisions while passing the impugned order.

5. Taking a leaf out of these very provisions, the learned senior Advocate submits that since a drastic action of removal of directly elected President was being sought to be taken, the provisions should be strictly applied and necessary steps ought to have been taken within the time frame provided for in this provision. He would point out that sub Section 2 of Section 55(1) requires the Collector to undertake an enquiry into the charges and complete it within a month from the date of receipt of the requisition. He would further submit that according to the proviso to Sub Section 2 such enquiry cannot extend beyond the period of 3 months and even for such extended period a prior assent of the State Government is necessary. He would further point out that according to Sub Section 3 the Collector has to record a finding and forward it to the Government. He would therefore, point out that in the present matter the Collector had received the complaint on 27.10.2020 but, the enquiry was not concluded within the stipulated period of one month. No assent was obtained from the Government since the enquiry was extending beyond the period and he submitted the report to the Government on 3.6.2021. Again the Collector himself did not undertake any enquiry and had appointed a committee. Even if he had taken help of such a committee in enquiring into the allegations, he should have applied his mind and should have come to a conclusion before forwarding it to the Government. He would submit that the Collector has simply forwarded the report without application of mind and based on such report to which the Collector had not recorded any finding, the impugned order has been passed. It clearly defies the statutory