Bombay High Court
Yashwant Datta Khirade vs The Collector And Others on 25 November, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
1 wp7068/21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7068 OF 2021
Yashwant Datta Khirade, Age 76 years, Occ.
Agriculture and Ex-Sarpanch of village
Panchayat, R/o. Talang. Tq. Hadgaon, Dist.
Nanded .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Collector, Nanded, District Nanded
2. Village Development Ofcer, Age Major,
Occ. Service, Gram Panchayat Ofce,
Telang, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded
3. Sandeep Govindrao Mirase, Age Major,
Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Telang, Tq. Hadgaon,
District Nanded
4. Block Development Ofcer, Panchayat
Samiti, Hadgaon, District Nanded .. RESPONDENTS
...
Shri U.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri P.N. Kutti, AGP for the respondent No.1/State
Ms. Yogita Thorat Kshirsagar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4
Shri B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 25.11.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The
matter is taken up for fnal disposal at the request of the learned
Advocates for the parties.
2 wp7068/21
3. The petitioner is impugning the order of the Collector,
Nanded passed on a complaint fled under Sections 7 and 36 of
the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 thereby
disqualifying him from holding the ofce as a Sarpanch.
4. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned
A.G.P. for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate for the
contesting respondent No.3 on whose complaint the inquiry was
initiated resulting in passing the order.
5. The record reveals that on the complaint fled by
respondent No.3 for not holding mandatory meetings as is
contemplated under Section 7 of the Act, the respondent
Collector directed a notice to be issued to the petitioner. In
response, he put appearance on one day and on the next day the
matter was decided. The notice does not contain particulars as
to the allegations which the petitioner was called upon to
explain. As the wording of Section 7 suggests that it is only on
failure to furnish sufcient cause that the provision requires a
disqualifcation.
6. According to the Roznama, the petitioner had put in
appearance on 15.12.2020. The next roznama is of 08.06.2021
and on that day the impugned order was passed. The Roznama
does not demonstrate that the petitioner was given any
opportunity to fle any reply, though it is now being pointed, on
the basis of the entries on the fle, that some dates were
assigned between the two dates of which the Roznama was
3 wp7068/21
written. The Roznama itself is absolutely silent and no
interference can be drawn to demonstrate that the petitioner
was given an opportunity of fling any reply.
6. In the catena of decisions of this Court, including the
last one in the matter of Mathurabai Govind Sontakke v. The
Additional Collector Nanded & others, Writ Petition No.
5490 of 2017 decided on 14.12.2017 in the similar set of facts,
when the notice was equally vague and no opportunity of
hearing was extended before the Collector, this Court had
remanded the matter.
7. True it is that in the matters of Pralhad Bhikaji
Bargade v. The State of Maharashtra & ors.; 2016(6) All
MR 721 and Nanasaheb s/o Dhondiram Mundhe v.
Additional Collector, Parbhani & ors.; 2010 (6) All MR 764;
the petitions of the disqualifed Sarpanch were dismissed.
However, as can be noticed in both these matters, the facts were
not identical as obtaining in the matter in hand. The reading of
the judgments in those two matters would clearly indicate that
the concerned persons were given opportunity of fling reply-
written statement, the contents whereof were considered and
the decisions were rendered on the face of the facts which were
established in the matter. In the matter in hand, that is not the
case.
8. There is one more aspect of the matter. The learned
Collector had called for a report of the Block Development Ofcer
4 wp7068/21
before proceeding to decide the matter. There is nothing on
record to show that the copy of that report was even served to
the petitioner so that he could have availed of an opportunity to
controvert the report. The report has been unilaterally
entertained as gospel truth by the Collector. Sufce for the
purpose to observe that the decision of this court in the matter
of Janabai v. Additional Commissioner and other; AIR 2018
SC 5068 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Quasi
Judicial Authority. The impugned order is passed without
following the procedure contained in the said judgment.
9. In view of the above state of afairs the impugned
order is not sustainable in law as it clearly lacks application of
the mind and is sans obedience to the principles of natural
justice.
10. The Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order is
quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
Collector for taking a decision afresh by afording an opportunity
to the petitioner to fle his written statement. Parties shall appear
before the Collector on 23.12.2021 and there shall be no need
for the Collector to issue any notice to them. The Collector shall
make every endeavour to take the decision as early as possible
and in any event within a period of three months.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
SRM/25/11/21
