SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Sandeep K. Shinde, J.
Ankush Achutrao Raut - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4920 of 2021
Decided On : 14-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
R.V. Gore, Advocate, S.P. Tiwari, Advocate, A.D. Sugdare, Advocate

The central legal point established is the interpretation of 'misconduct' under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and the need for strict construction of removal provisions for elected representatives.

Headnote:

Misconduct - Removal from Office - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 39(2), Section 39(3)

Fact of the Case:

The petition challenges the removal of the Petitioners from the office of Group of Gram Panchayat, Karodi Sajapur, under Section 39(2) and Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Petitioners were removed for granting development permission in violation of Section 52 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the resolution granting development permission was contrary to the provisions of Section 52 of the Act. However, the court also noted that the permission was subsequently cancelled by the Panchayat, and the Petitioners rectified the mistake. The court held that the resolution did not amount to 'misconduct' in the discharge of duties as defined under Section 39(1)(i) of the Act.

Issues: The issues included the interpretation of 'misconduct' under Section 39(1)(i) of the Act, the distinction between 'illegality' and 'misconduct', and the procedural irregularities in the removal of the Petitioners from office.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted 'misconduct' as wilful and wrongful behaviour, and distinguished it from 'illegality' or irregular exercise of powers. The court also emphasized the need for strict construction of the removal provisions for elected representatives. The court found procedural irregularities in the removal process.

Final Decision: The impugned orders removing the Petitioners from office were quashed and set aside, and the Petition was allowed.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep K Shinde, J. - This petition challenges the orders dated 6th February, 2020 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad under Section 39(2) and order dated 10th February, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble State Minister, Rural Development under Section 39(3), both in exercise of powers, under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959; whereby the Petitioners were removed from the office of Group of Gram Panchayat, Karodi Sajapur, for their remaining term as a members of Panchayat.

2. Briefly, stated facts of the case are that, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of the Group of Gram Panchayat, Karodi Sajapur (Panchayat for short). In the year 2017, Petitioner No.1 was directly elected as Sarpanch. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 were elected as members of the Panchayat. It may be stated the Respondent No.6 is one of the elected members of the Panchayat. In the meeting of the Panchayat held on 30th January, 2018, Petitioners and Respondent No.6 unanimously resolved to grant development permission to six persons to develop their respective plots. Whereafter Respondent No.6 complained to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, that the resolution dated 30th January, 2018 moved by the Petitioner No.1, was in utter disregard to provision of Section 52 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and it amounts to "misconduct in discharge of his duties". An application under Section 39-A of the Act was moved. Whereafter on 3rd December, 2018, Additional Divisional Commissioner directed Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, to hold an enquiry against the Sarpanch and submit the report within a month. In pursuance thereto, Block Development Officer held an enquiry and submitted a report dated 7th May, 2019 to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. On 19th June, 2019, Chief Executive Officer issued a show cause notice to the Petitioners as to why they should not be removed from the office of Panchayat in term of Section 39(1) (i) of the said Act. The Chief Executive Officer, after hearing the Petitioners, recorded a finding that, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, granting development permission, was contrary to provisions of Section 52 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and forwarded his report to Addl. Divisional Commissioner. The Add. Divisional Commissioner, after hearing the Petitioners, held them guilty of misconduct for granting illegal development permissions and removed them from the Panchayat and further disqualified Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch for remainder of the term of office of Panchayat. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Add. Divisional Commissioner, an appeal was preferred before the State, but it was dismissed by the Hon'ble State Minister for village development by order dated 10th February, 2021. These two orders are impugned in this petition.

3. Before adverting to the arguments of the respective counsel for the parties, it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant provision of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959;

Section 39. Removal from office :

199[(1) The Commissioner may, -

(i) remove from office any member or any Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch who has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or of any disgraceful conduct, or of neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty, or is persistently remiss in the discharge thereof. A Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch so removed may at the discretion of the Commissioner also be removed from the Panchayat, or

(ii) remove from office the member, Sarpanch or as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch if not less than twenty per cent, of the total number of voters in the village who have paid all dues of the Panchayat regarding taxes on buildings and lands and water charges, make a complaint that the annual accounts and the report of the expenditure incurred by the Panchayat on the development activities are not placed before the Gram Sabha; and the information thereof is not di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top