The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by respondent no.1, disqualifying the petitioner as a member and Sarpanch of village Panchayat, Gundewadi, for not conducting at least four meetings of the Gram Sabha in the financial year. The Court observed that mere non-performance of the statutory duty would not disqualify the elected member unless he is not able to give a good reason for non-performing of the statutory duty.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Gundewadi. 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. 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, Respondent no.1, by letter dated 30.12.2021, issued notice to the petitioner. On 11.05.2022, Respondent no. 2 – Gramsevak, Village Panchayat, Gundewadi submitted his report in the office of Respondent no.1. The petitioner submitted that he has conducted Gramsabha meetings and that there was a delay in taking the meeting at the beginning of the year on account of Covid19 pandemic and the various prohibitory orders being passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Collector, Jalna, himself.
By order dated 8th September 2022, respondent no.1 – Collector, Jalna disqualified the petitioner for violation of the mandate of Section 7 [1] of the 1958 Act. The Collector held that the petitioner has conducted consecutive meetings in a short period without explanation for the same and has also not held one of the meetings at the beginning of the financial year within the first two months.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that at the 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.
Further, the petitioner submitted that he had conducted the requisite minimum of four [4] Gram Sabhas.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and argued that in the reply of the petitioner before the Collector, no dates are mentioned of the meetings and therefore there were no meetings conducted by the petitioner and that the petitioner has created bogus record to show the meetings were held and as such the petitioner should be disqualified.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that an elected member is to be removed in exceptional circumstances and that he has to be explained the specific charge against him and also the elected member should be given an opportunity to explain the sufficient cause for his failure to perform a statutory duty.
Further, the Court remarked that mere non-performance of the statutory duty would not disqualify the elected member unless he is not able to give a good reason for non-performing of the statutory duty. Thus, non-performance of statutory duty does not lead to automatic disqualification. In the instant case, the petitioner held four [4] meetings of Gram Sabha after lifting the prohibitory orders under the Disaster Management Act and prohibition under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus he has not violated provisions of Section 7 of the 1958 Act, which contemplates that there has to be four meetings every financial year and that there should not be a gap of more than four months in between two meetings.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the petitioner has complied with Section 7 of the 1958 Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 passed by respondent no.1 – the Collector, Jalna is quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Shri. Manohar Natraj vs The Collector, Jalna & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun R. Pedneker
Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 9427 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Aniruddha A. Nimbalkar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. G. O. Wattamwar
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments