1 wp3827.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3827/2017
1] Smt. Sheela Babarao Khorgade,
Aged about 51 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Gram Panchayat Anandwadi,
Tahasil: Ashti Dist. Wardha
..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] The Hon'ble State Minister, Rural
Development Department, Maharashtra
State, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur
3] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Wardha
4] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Ashti,
Tahasil: Ashti. Dist. Wardha
5] Shri. Nagorao Ramraoji Khode,
Aged: Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Gram Panchayat Anandwadi,
Tahasil: Ashti Dist. Wardha
6] Shri Sunilkumar Bhargave
Aged: Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Gram Panchayat Anandwadi
Tahasil: Ashti Dist. Wardha
7] Shri Vilas D. Pasare
Aged: Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Gram Panchayat Anandwadi,
Tahasil: Ashti Dist. Wardha
8] Smt. Kalpana P. Katare
Aged: Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Gram Panchayat Anandwadi,
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:12:45 :::
2 wp3827.2017.odt
Tahasil: Ashti Dist. Wardha
9] Smt. Aruna M. Dhurve,
Aged: Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Gram Panchayat Anandwadi,
Tahasil: Ashti Dist. Wardha
10] The Gram Panchayat,
Anandwadi, Tah: Ashti,
Dist. Wardha, through its Secretary
... RESPONDENT
S
=====================================
Shri V.G. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioner
Miss T.H. Khan, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
Shri J. Mokadam, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 and 4
Shri N.D. Khamborkar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 5 to 9
=====================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
DATED :- 20 November
th
,
201
7
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The petitioner, an elected member and Sarpanch of the
Gram Panchayat is ousted from the office under Section 39(1) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on the ground that the
petitioner has misappropriated amount of Rs. 36,900/-.
3] It is undisputed that after the Additional Commissioner
disqualified the petitioner from continuing in office, by the order passed
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:12:45 :::
3 wp3827.2017.odt
on 15/06/2016, the petitioner had filed appeal before the State
Government under Section 39(3) of the Act of 1958 and during the
pendency of this appeal, an order was passed that the Technical Officer
be appointed to conduct an inquiry in respect of allegations made
against the petitioner regarding misappropriation of amount in carrying
out the work of Water Supply Scheme, and accordingly the Executive
Engineer of Rural Water Supply Scheme, Zilla Parishad, Wardha was
appointed. He conducted an inquiry and submitted report stating that
there was no irregularity in carrying out the works by the Gram
Panchayat. Though the opinion given by the Executive Engineer in the
report that there is no irregularity is noticed by the Hon'ble Minister,
the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed overlooking the report
given by the Executive Engineer. As the Hon'ble Minister has overlooked
the report given by the Executive Engineer who was appointed specially
to conduct an inquiry and submit report in the matter, the order passed
by the Hon'ble Minister is unsustainable.
It is submitted that the Executive Engineer was appointed
and the report was submitted by him after the order was passed by the
Additional Commissioner and there was no occasion for the Additional
Commissioner to consider the report of the Executive Engineer. Thus, I
find that the report of the Executive Engineer is not examined and
considered by any of the Adjudicatory Authority.
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:12:45 :::
4 wp3827.2017.odt
4] In view of the above facts, the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
1] The impugned orders are set aside. 2] The matter is remitted to the Additional Commissioner for disposing the proceedings afresh. 3] The parties shall appear before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 10/01/2018 and abide by further instructions/orders in the matter.
4] The learned advocate for the petitioner shall dispose the proceedings, after hearing the parties, till 31/01/2018. The complainant will be at liberty to take objection to the report submitted by the Executive Engineer and the objection, if raised by the complainant, shall be dealt with according to law. 5] As the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner continues to be in office in view of the interim ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:12:45 ::: 5 wp3827.2017.odt order passed by this Court on 22/06/2017, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in office till the disposal of the proceedings by the Additional Commissioner.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE A n s a r i ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:12:45 :::