The circumstances leading to the non-convening of the meeting constituted a 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 36, thereby saving the petitioner from disqualification.

JUDGMENT :

By the present petition, petitioner assails the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the District Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute Application No. 66 of 2022, by which the petitioner has been disqualified for being a Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Kanalda. The disqualification is ordered on account of failure of the petitioner to convene monthly meeting for the month of October-2021.

2. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on account of medical leave of the Village Development Officer from 11.10.2021, the petitioner was unable to convene meeting for the month of October-2021. He relies upon communications dated 27.10.2021 and 29.10.2021 made by the petitioner to Block Development Officer and Chief Executive Officer communicating the factum of absence of Village Development Officer leading to non-convening of monthly meeting of October – 2021. He also relies upon the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Block Development Officer handing over charge of Village Development Officer to Shri. Sunil Devchand Dandge. He would submit that despite handing over the charge, Shri. Sunil Devchand Dandge avoided to take over charge of the post of Village Development Officer of Gram Panchayat, Kanalda, on account of which a show cause notice was issued to Shri. Dandge by the Block Development Officer on 28.10.2021.

3. Shri. Patil also invites my attention to the reports dated 28.03.2022 and 25.04.2022 submitted by the Extension Officer and the Chief Executive Officer, highlighting the fact of absence of the Village Development Officer and Shri. Dandge to take over the charge of the post.

4. Mr. Patil would also rely upon the provisions of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 (for short “Rules of 1959”) to contend that the notice for convening a meeting is required to be given by the Secretary alone. Referring to the provisions of the sub-section (20) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (for short “Act of 1959”), Mr. Patil would contend that the term ‘Secretary’ referred to in Rule-4 of the Rules of 1959 means the Secretary of Panchayat appointed or deemed to be appointed under Section 60 of the Act of 1959. He would therefore contend that in absence of the Village Panchayat Officer, it was impossible for the petitioner to convene monthly meeting for October -2021. Lastly Mr. Patil would submit that all the monthly meetings from November – 2021 onwards have been conducted by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Kanade appears for respondent no.6 and learned counsel Mr. Suryawanshi appears for respondent No.7. Even though no appearance is caused on behalf of respondent nos.8 to 16, it is common ground that respondent nos.6 to 16 had submitted a joint complaint seeking disqualification of the petitioner and they jointly represented in the proceedings before Collector. Since respondent nos.6 and 7 are represented by two learned advocates, I do not deem it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings any further for causing appearance for respondent nos.8 to 16.

6. Mr. Kanade and Mr. Suryawanshi would oppose the petition contending that between 01.10.2021 to 10.10.2021, the Village Development Officer was present in the office and it was possible for the petitioner to conduct the monthly meeting. They would submit that the meeting was not conducted by the petitioner during that period. They would rely upon the provisions of subsection (11) of Section 7 of the Act of 1959 to contend that in absence of Village Development Officer, the meeting could have been convened by taking assistance of any government, semi government, employee like teacher, Talathi or Anganwadi Sevika. Despite existence of such special provision under Section 7 (11) of the Act of 1959, the petitioner did not take assistance of such officials so as to convene meeting in October – 2021. Referring to the contents of the complaint filed before the Collector, Mr. Kanade and Mr. Suryawanshi would con