The Collector must be satisfied that the Sarpanch wilfully omitted or refused to carry out or violated the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Orders made thereunder and abused and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama Panchayat or the Grama.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) A question of some importance relating to the functioning of democracy falls for decision in this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, filed by a Sarpanch against an order of suspension passed by the Collector under the provision of S. 115 (1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (Orissa Act 1 of 1965 ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner, the Sarpanch of Purunabandhagoda Grama Panchayat in the district of Keonjhar, was suspended from office by order of the Collector dt/- 28-6-1985 as per Annexure-1. On allegations - particulars being annexed that he violated, omitted or refused to carry out the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Orders made thereunder and abused the powers, rights and privileges vested in him and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama and his further continuance was detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat and the inhabitants of the Grama. The petitioner alleged that the order of suspension came as a surprise to him as at no point of time he had violated the provisions of law. His suspension from office was mala fide and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

( 3 ) IN the return submitted by the opposite parties, the assertions of the petitioner were refuted. It was averred that the petitioner as Sarpanch violated the various provisions of the Act, the rules and the orders made thereunder and acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat and also disobeyed the direction issued by the higher authorities from time to time. As the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that the Collector did not have the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer before him as required by Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 115 on the basis whereof the impugned action was taken, in the return submitted, the opposite parties, referred to the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer and annexed the same as Annexure 2.

( 4 ) THE allegations against the petitioner have been summarised in para 3 of the counter affidavit in sub-paras (a), (b), (c)and (d)and they are as under :" (A) He has violated the provisions of the S. 94 (2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 by retaining excess cash in hand beyond the prescribed limit fixed by the Collector. (B) He has arbitrarily cancelled the lease of Gadhua Pokhari at village Karadapal by adopting a resolution disobeying the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Anandapur hearing No. 5696 dt/- 18-10-1984 served through the Block Development Officer, Ghasipura. (C) In absence of any statutory provision in the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, and rules thereunder, the petitioner in the capacity of the Sarpanch, has granted an advance of Rs. 1000/- to the Grama Panchayat Secretary and as such acted (upon) outside his jurisdiction. (D) He has failed to realise the security deposit from the Grama Panchayat Secretary violating the provisions of R. 215 (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968. "it is, therefore, unnecessary for us to reproduce the report of the S. D. O.

( 5 ) MR. R. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the decision to suspend the petitioner has been actuated by mala fide, is unsupportable having regard to the allegations and some of the essential conditions of S. 115 (1) are not satisfied. The learned Additional Standing Counsel, however, has urged that the satisfaction of the Collector is final and this Court does not function as an appellate Court. Re-assessment or reappraisal of the materials are outside the bounds of jurisdiction of this Court.

( 6 ) THERE cannot be any dispute that while adjudging the vires of an action taken under S. 115 (1), this Court does not sit as an appellate court. But while exercising prerogative jurisdiction under Art. 226, it is within the competence of this Court to determine if the decision of the statutory authority was actuated by mala fides, factual or legal, and if the said decision is within the bounds of the