The main legal point established is the requirement for strict adherence to the principles of natural justice in conducting enquiries and the automatic disqualification for not holding necessary meetings.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Tope waives service for respondent No.2, learned Advocate Mr. A.N. Nagargoje waives service for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 and learned Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Pawar waives service for respondent Nos.4 and 7 to 10. At the joint request of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 Collector dated 31.12.2020 holding him to have incurred a disqualification under Section 36 read with Section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) from holding the post of Sarpanch of village Ukhali, Taluka Aundha (Nagnath), District Hingoli for not holding the requisite number of monthly meetings and gram sabhas. The decision was rendered on a complaint filed by respondent No.2.

4. Mr. S.K. Chavan, learned Advocate for the petitioner would strenuously submit that the decision under challenge has been rendered in blatant disregard to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was served with a vague notice dated 26.05.2020 (Exh-A) without containing specific allegations as to what were the lapses on his part so as to constitute the disqualification. In the absence of such specific charges having been ever communicated to him, the decision was rendered. By referring to the rojnama of the proceeding before respondent No.1 Collector, he would point out that the last date before pronouncement of the order under challenge was 03.08.2020. It only marks presence of the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2 and the other respondents through their Advocates. It does not mention about any arguments having been heard by the learned Collector. He would further point out that it reads that a report from Tahsildar, Aundha was called and the matter was straightway reserved for final decision. Subsequently, the impugned judgment and order has been pronounced on 31.12.2020. He would further point out from the observations in the impugned order that a report from the concerned Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Panchayat), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli was also perused. It was dated 31.08.2020 and no opportunity was ever extended to the petitioner to know the contents of the report, which were subsequently relied upon by respondent No.1 Collector while passing the impugned decision. If at all he was to rely upon such a report, a copy of it ought to have been served to the petitioner. That having not happened, the impugned order suffers from gross illegality. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate would place reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) Pratibha Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector & Ors.; 2010 (4) Bom.C.R.700

(ii) Sunil Daulat Patil V. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; 2014(1) Bom.C.R.1

(iii) Laxmibai Yadavrao Panchal Vs. The Additional Collector & Ors.; Writ Petition No.8668 of 2015, decided on 05.05.2016

(iv) Saw. Padminbai Narsing Panchal Vs. The Additional Collector & Ors.; Writ Petition No.2971 of 2017, decided on 05.12.2017

5. The learned A.G.P. and Mr. S.S. Tope, learned Advocate for respondent No.2, by referring to their respective affidavits-in-reply, submit that though the notice served to the petitioner to appear and contest the proceeding before respondent No.1 Collector did not contain the particulars, he was aware about the contents of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 (Exh-B) and had even filed his written statement (Exh-C) and made an attempt to show that there was sufficient cause for him not to hold the meetings. They would, therefore, submit that it was not a case where the incumbent was completely in dark when he faced the enquiry. They would, therefore, submit that the petitioner is not entitled now to put up a grievance about absence of an opportunity of being heard and to meet the charges.