Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Pundalik S/o Tulshiram Sapkale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
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 Deve
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.
Non-performance of statutory duty does not lead to automatic disqualification, and an elected member can only be removed in exceptional circumstances after being explained the specific charge against....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disqualification of the petitioner under Section 35(1)(k) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was illegal, and the petitioner was entitl....
The court held that the period of involuntary absence due to judicial custody should be excluded from the computation of the three-month period under Section 35(1)(k) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,....
Disqualification of Councillors requires formal decision by the Collector to invalidate their participation in a no-confidence meeting.
The duty of the Collector to conduct a proper inquiry and decide on disqualification within a specified time frame, following the principles of natural justice and fair play.
The court held that a no confidence motion passed during a meeting convened without proper notice is invalid and nullifies the decision taken.
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
