IMPORTANT POINT
The removal or disqualification of an elected official requires strict adherence to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice, including proper notice and opportunity to defend oneself against allegations.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ARUN R.PEDNEKER, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Heard Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Sandip R. Sapkal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D. R. Kale, Government Pleader for Respondent / State, Mr. Shivraj B. Kadu, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 and Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shriram V. Deshmukh instructed by Mr. Jiwan J. Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.6.

3. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 15/9/2023, passed by the statutory authority disqualifying the petitioner from the post of President of the Jafrabad Nagar Panchayat. The facts in brief are summarized as under:

I. The petitioner is elected councilor of the Jafrabad Municipal Council for the term 2021 - 2026. On 16/2/2022, the petitioner was elected as the President of the said Municipal Council. On 27/2/2023, 12 councilors moved an application to the Collector requesting him to call a special meeting for holding no confidence motion. However, the amended provision of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') does not provide for no confidence against an elected President and, as such, on 3/3/2023, the Collector issued notice for enquiry of alleged misconduct under Sec. 341B-5 of the Act. The petitioner replied to all the allegations made in the complaint. The collector had also called for a report from the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. The collector submitted an adverse report against the petitioner to the statutory authority for initiating proceedings under Sec. 55A of the Act. On 13/6/2023, the statutory authority issued notice to the petitioner under Sec. 55A of the Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had not conducted meetings, as required under Sec. 81(1) of the Act. The meetings were not held in timely fashion and that the meetings were held without there being any Coram and in some meetings financial subjects were taken up on the spot and the resolutions were also passed to that effect. The petitioner was called upon to show cause in terms of Sec. 55A of the Act.

II. On 26/6/2023, after the notice was received by the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application for adjournment and on the same day the application was submitted by the petitioner to the collector requesting the report submitted by the collector and other documents since entire report of collector and documents supporting it was never served by the Mantralaya / statutory authority to the petitioner.

III. On 10/7/2023, letter was submitted by the petitioner to the statutory authority that the documents were not supplied by the collector and that further adjournment be granted. The hearing was kept on 11/8/2023. It was intimated to the statutory authority that on 11/8/2023, the petitioner will not be able to attend the hearing on 11/8/2023, as on the direction of the collector she was required to attend the funeral of a martyr soldier in Jafrabad. Hearing was conducted by the statutory authority on 24/8/2023. It was brought to the notice of the statutory authority that the documents were not supplied by the collector. The statutory authority by order dtd. 24/8/2023 directed the collector to give copies of the documents to the petitioner, and, as such, documents were given to the petitioner on 1/9/2023. On 1/9/2023, the petitioner submitted application to the statutory authority submitting that in the hearing dtd. 24/8/2023, there was direction to supply copies and the documents are supplied on 1/9/2023 and she needs time to respond to the documents. However, on 16/9/2023, the impugned order was forwarded to the petitioner by the secretary of the statutory authority. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order before this court.

4. The petitioner is challenging the imp