Bombay High Court
Smt. Sarla Dadarao Ingale vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The Honble ... on 19 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8322
wp3121.25.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3121 OF 2025
Smt. Sarla Dadarao Ingale
Age 53 Years, Occ.Housewife,
R/o Kholapur, Tq. Bhatkuli,
Dist. - Amravati ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra through,
The Hon'ble Minister, for Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Bhatkuli,
Distt. Amravati.
5. The Gram Panchayat, Kholapur
through, It's Secretary Tq.Kholapur.
6. SK. Najimoddin Sk. Mohiyoddin
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
7. Sau.Naj Bano Gaffar Shaha
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
8. Shri.Sunil Sitaram Tayade
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
9. Sau.Alka Nilesh Parde
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
wp3121.25.odt 2/9
10. Ashok Bhimrao Lamse
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
11. Sau. Shital Shankar Aaware
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
12. Shri.Mohammad Ahefaz Mhd. Najakat
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
13. Sau.Nirmala Subhash Chakre
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
14. Sau. Shamshad Bano Nasir Khan
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
15. Shri. Ravindra Devidas Tapke
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
16. Sau.Chhaya Ram Chakre
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
17. Sau. Nasrin Jh Nasir Khan
R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
18. Mohammad Harun Sk.Ismail,
All R/o Gram Panchayat, Kholapur.
Tq.Bhatkuli. Dist Amravati .Respondents
....
Mr. Anand Deshpande, Advocate with Advocates G.R.Bhake,
A.V.Gudadhe for petitioner.
Mr. A.G.Mate, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr. P.A.Kadu, Advocate for respondent nos. 6 to 17.
...
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Anand S.Deshpande, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. A.G.Mate, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
and Mr. P.A.Kadu, Advocate for respondent nos. 6 to 17.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner has challenged order passed by the
respondent no.1-Hon'ble Minister for Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj, thereby maintaining the orders passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Amravati in proceedings under
Section 39 (3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959
("the Act" for short).
4. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner raised
several grounds challenging the impugned order, however, primarily
contended that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is
unsustainable since it is a common order disposing of two different
appeals, recording reasons with respect to only one appeal. He,
therefore, submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable on
account of absence of reasons and non-consideration of vital issues
raised in one of the appeals under Section 39(3) of the Act. He
submitted that the petitioner, who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,
Kholapur is ordered to be disqualified by virtue of provisions under
Section 39(1) of the Act on alleged encroachment on government
land by virtue of order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Amravati. Apart from this, in a separate proceedings
initiated under Section 39(1) of the Act, the petitioner is ordered to
be disqualified by order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Amravati on account of alleged misappropriation of
money because of unnecessary expenses on behalf of the Gram
Panchayat. Both these orders were subjected to challenge by the
petitioner by way of separate appeals under Section 39(3) of the Act
before the Hon'ble Minister, in view of the distinct subject matters
and separate causes of action. By adverting attention of this Court to
the impugned order, it is pointed out that the Hon'ble Minister has
passed order dated 08.05.2025 by referring to only one appeal
bearing Appeal No.V.P.M.-2025-Case no.57-PRa-06, and by giving
consideration only to the contentions in the appeal challenging the
order dated 07.02.2025. It is submitted that the impugned order is
passed maintaining both the orders passed by the Additional
Commissioner in two separate proceedings. He submitted that the
impugned order is unsustainable in law on this count alone.
5. While opposing the writ petition, learned AGP for the
respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned Advocate Kadu for respondent
nos.6 to 17 submitted that the impugned order refers to both the
orders passed by the Additional Commissioner i.e. order dated
06.01.2025 and 07.02.2025 in two proceedings and since the
contentions of the parties are identical, there is no illegality in
passing the common order.
6. As regards the appeal challenging the order dated
06.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, it is submitted
that Hon'ble Minster has concurred with the reasoning of the
Additional Commissioner and therefore the order was not required
to be substantiated by way of elaborate reasons. In support of his
submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, reported
in (1990) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594, in which it is observed that
the appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms an order, need not
give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees
with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.
7. To controvert these submissions, Advocate Anand
Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basudev
Datta Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
3616 and invited attention of this Court to the principles
summarized with regard to necessity of recording reasons. He also
relied upon unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in Writ Petition No.9708/2010 in the matter of Smt.Chhaya Jagan
Kale Vs The State of Maharashtra and others (decided on
17/02/2011). Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on
the judgment in the matter of Seethamal and another Vs.
Narayanasamy and others, reported in 2023 DGLS (SC) 974, and
vehemently submitted that having regard to the peculiar nature of
the proceedings before the Hon'ble Minister, the non-consideration
of submissions in the respective appeals rendered the findings
unsustainable in law.
8. In view of rival submissions of the respective parties, the
legality of the impugned order on account of irregularity in passing a
common order while deciding the two separate appeals is hereby
tested.
9. It has to be noted that the petitioner had filed two
distinct appeals under Section 39(3) of the Act, one raising
challenge to the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Additional
Commissioner in which the issue of disqualification on account of
encroachment on government land was under consideration. The
other appeal under Section 39(3) of the Act was filed challenging
the order dated 07.02.2025 in which the issue about alleged
misappropriation of amount was subject matter of challenge. As
such, two separate proceedings with respect to different challenges
were filed before the Hon'ble Minister and the grounds raised in
these two appeals were required to be given due consideration. A
perusal of the impugned order shows that the Hon'ble Minister has
passed the impugned order in proceedings bearing Appeal No.57
and a perusal of cause title shows that the respondents in one of the
appeals (appeal challenging the order dated 07.02.2025) are
mentioned as parties to the appeal. It is pertinent to note that the
respondents in the appeal challenging order dated 06.01.2025 are
not mentioned in the array of parties and thus it is clear that they
were not heard. Apart from absence of reference to the number of
the proceedings of the appeal challenging the order dated
06.01.2025, there is no consideration of the issues raised in the said
appeals. It is clear that there were two separate appeals raising
distinct challenges which required separate consideration, however,
the Hon'ble Minister has given consideration only to the contentions
of one of the appeals i.e. the appeal challenging the order dated
07.02.2025, however, passed final orders with respect to both the
appeals. In my view, this is a glaring irregularity in the conduct of
the proceedings and having regard to non-consideration of the issues
raised in the appeal challenging the order dated 06.01.2025, the
impugned order is unsustainable on this count.
10. The legal position laid down in S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union
of India (supra) is not in dispute. However, in the present case,
apart from the absence of reasons while deciding the appeal
challenging the order dated 06.01.2025, there is non-consideration
of the issues raised and there is no hearing to parties of connected
appeal proceedings. Therefore, with due respect, the said judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court is of no assistance to the counsel for the
respondents.
11. In view of the nature of issues involved in two distinct
appeals, it was necessary to give due consideration to the respective
issues. Although in a given case, separate proceedings can be
clubbed, however, in the instant matter by referring to only one
appeal bearing no.57, proceedings of two distinct appeals are
decided by final order.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the reliance placed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the matter
of Seethamal and another Vs.Narayanasamy and others (supra) is
appropriate.
13. Having regard to the aforesaid considerations and
particularly in view of the glaring irregularity of deciding two
distinct appeals by a common order, the impugned order passed by
the Hon'ble Minister deserves to be quashed and set aside. As the
matter has been considered only from this limited perspective, this
Court has refrained from recording any findings on the merits of the
appeals.
14. In view of the above, the order dated 08.05.2025 passed
by the Hon'ble Minister is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter
is remanded to the Hon'ble Minister for fresh decision on both the
appeals, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.
The parties shall appear before the Hon'ble Minister within a period
of two weeks from today and place a copy of this order before it and
cooperate for further hearing of the appeals.
15. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Writ
petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J)
Mukund Ambulkar
Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2025 20:34:47
