Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. Jamadar, J.
Mangal Mahadu Korde - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.10185 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag R. Mishra i/by Mr. Adwait Bhonde
For the Respondent : Ms. Mamta S. Srivastava, AGP, Mr. Ravindra Sonba Pachundkar, Mr. Vijaykumar Dighe with Mr. Turerao

Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Anurag R. Mishra, Adwait Bhonde
For the Respondents: Mamta S. Srivastava, Ravindra Sonba Pachundkar, Vijaykumar Dighe, Turerao

Writ court may dismiss challenge to unreasoned removal order if quashing revives illegal exoneration, upholding merits where consistent tender violations establish misconduct sans misappropriation.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - Sections 39(1), 39(3) and Maharashtra Grampanchayat Account Code, 2011 - Removal of Sarpanch - Multiple works executed without inviting bids or tenders, cash transactions without accounting rules - Divisional Commissioner declined removal holding administrative lapses sans misappropriation - State Government allowed appeal removing Petitioner without recording reasons - Though impugned order lacks reasons, quashing it would revive illegal exoneration order - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 25, 38-43)

(B) Quasi-judicial orders - Reasons essential, more so when appellate authority reverses lower finding - Unreasoned order violates natural justice. (Paras 6-8, 22-24)

(C) Misconduct - Implies wrongful intention, transgression of definite rules; not mere negligence - Consistent tender violations in public works execution amounts to misconduct justifying removal despite no misappropriation. (Paras 16-18, 26-38)

(D) Elected representatives - Removal demands caution; strict adherence to procedure as deprives constituency representation. (Paras 19-21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner elected Sarpanch for five years. Complaint by panchayat member alleging irregularities, misconduct. Preliminary inquiry indicted. Chief Executive Officer reported over 50 works sans tenders, no notices, cash deals. Divisional Commissioner after hearing declined removal. Respondent appealed; State Government allowed, removed Petitioner. Petitioner filed writ challenging impugned order.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order lacks reasons but material shows consistent misconduct; Divisional Commissioner's order erroneous; dismissal avoids reviving illegal order.

Issues: Whether impugned order vitiated for lack of reasons; whether irregularities constitute misconduct warranting removal.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ court refrains from quashing appellate order despite legal infirmity if effect revives equally/perniciously illegal lower order, particularly where misconduct evident from record.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of sarpanch election and removal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties argue lack of reasons and misconduct sufficiency. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. section 39 prescribes inquiry and appeal for removal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. misconduct requires willful improper conduct, not negligence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. caution essential in removing elected local representatives. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. quasi-judicial appellate orders demand recorded reasons. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. systemic tender violations constitute sarpanch misconduct. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
8. do not quash flawed order reviving illegal prior order. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
9. writ petition dismissed, rule discharged. (Para 44)

JUDGMENT :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner takes exception to an order dated 8 May 2025 passed by the State Government in Appeal No.V.P.M. 2024/Pra.Kra.101/P.R.6, whereby the appeal preferred by Respondent No.5 under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (the Act, 1959) against an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune in Village Panchayat Dispute No.4 of 2024, thereby declining to remove the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Wakalwadi, Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune, came to be allowed and the Petitioner came to be removed from the said office.

Background facts:

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under :

3.1 In the election to the Wakalwadi Village Panchayat held in the year 2021, the Petitioner came to be elected for the term of five years. The Petitioner was subsequently elected as Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat. Respondent No.5, a member of the said Village Panchayat, lodged a complaint with the Zilla Parishad, Pune, alleging various irregularities in the affairs of the Village Panchayat, and misconduct by the Petitioner, Upa-Sarpanch and the Secretary, of the Village Panchayat.

3.2 Pursuant to the directions of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune, the Block Development Officer had conducted a preliminary inquiry and submitted a report on 26 September 2023, wherein the Petitioner and others were indicted. Eventually, by the order of the Divisional Commissioner under the proviso to Section 39(1) of the Act, 1959, the Chief Executive Officer caused an inquiry to be conducted in the allegations against the Petitioner.

3.3 Post inquiry, on 18 March 2024, the Chief Executive Officer submitted a report to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. The Chief Executive Officer, inter alia, reported various acts of omission and commission by the Petitioner and the Secretary of the Village Panchayat. It was noted that, more than 50 village panchayat works were executed without inviting bids and resorting to tender process. Not a single notice inviting tender was published in the newspapers or on digital portals. Nor the bids were invited in respect of any of the works. Contracts were awarded without following the tender process. Purchase orders were not issued. Cash transactions were entered into without adhering to the Accounting Rules. Various other acts and omissions were also attributed to the Petitioner.

3.4 After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, by an order dated 3 July 2024, the Divisional Commissioner was persuaded not to take action of removal against the Petitioner opining that, though there were irregularities in the various works executed by the Petitioner, yet, the report of the Chief Executive Officer did not reveal that there was misappropriation of the Village Panchayat and other funds, made available to the Village Panchayat. Thus, the removal of the Petitioner by invoking the power under Section 39(1) of the Act, 1959, from the offi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 876

Writ court may dismiss challenge to unreasoned removal order if quashing revives illegal exoneration, upholding merits where consistent tender violations establish misconduct sans misappropriation.

Cases Referred (6)