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 them and given an opportunity to explain sufficient cause for their failure to perform statutory duty.

JUDGMENT

Arun R. Pedneker, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 - Collector, Jalna under section 7 read with 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 [for short 'the 1958 Act'], and thereby disqualifying the petitioner as a member and Sarpanch of village Panchayat, Gundewadi, Taluka & District, Jalna, for not conducting at least four meetings of the Gram Sabha in the financial year.

Brief facts leading to filing of the petition can be summarised as under :

3. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Gundewadi. The respondent no.3 filed an application to the Collector, respondent no.1, seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Section 7 read with 16 of the 1958 Act, on 22.10.2021. It was contended in the said application that the applicant has not attended any meeting of the Gram Sabha and as such the petitioner should be disqualified from holding the post of the Sarpanch and also from his membership of the village panchayat for not holding four meetings of Gram Sabha in the financial year. Pursuant to the said application, the respondent no.1 - Collector, Jalna, by letter dated 30.12.2021, issued notice to the petitioner. On 11.05.2022, the respondent no. 2 - Gramsevak, Village Panchayat, Gundewadi submitted his report in the office of the respondent no.1 - Collector. Vide its say dated 14.06.2022, the petitioner submitted that he has conducted Gramsabha meetings and that there was a delay in taking meeting in the beginning of the year, on account of Covid-19 pandemic and the various prohibitory orders being passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Collector, Jalna, himself.

4. By order dated 8th September, 2022, the respondent no.1 - Collector, Jalna disqualified the petitioner for violation of mandate of Section 7 [1. of the 1958 Act. The Collector held that the petitioner has conducted consecutive meetings in short period without explanation for the same and has also not held one of the meeting at the beginning of the financial year within first two months.

Submissions :

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that time of the election, covid-19 pandemic was prevalent and that there were Government Circulars and prohibitory orders passed by the respondent no.1 in force. The Government Circular was issued on 12th May, 2020 under the Disaster Management Act wherein it was directed that in view of the prevalent pandemic situation there shall be a stay to conducting of Gram Sabhas as per Section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. This Circular was in force for a period of one year, which was again extended further. It is further contended that the respondent no.1 - Collector of the Jalna District had also issued prohibitory order under Section 144 from 05.04.2021 to 15.06.2021.

6. The petitioner submits that he conducted the requisite minimum four [4. Gram Sabhas. The first Gram Sabha meeting was held by the petitioner on 03.09.2021. The second Gram Sabha meeting was held on 16.11.2021. The third Gram Sabha meeting was fixed on 26.11.2021 but the same was postponed to 30.11.2021 and the fourth Gram Sabha meeting was held on-line on 26.01.2022, in view of the direction issued by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer [Panchayat], Zilla Parishad, Jalna to conduct the meeting of Gram Sabha on-line on 26.01.2022.

7. The petitioner submits that he has conducted requisite number of meetings within the relevant financial year after the prohibitory orders were lifted. The Act of 1958 does not contemplate nature and manner in which the meetings are to be conducted except that there has to be not more than four months gap in between two meetings.

8. The learned counsel further submits that even if it is held that the meetings are not conducted as per the provisions of the Act of 1958 unless there is mala fide reasons for not doing so, the petitioner cannot be removed from his