[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vimal Shivaji Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:35699
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10530 OF 2025
Vimal Shivaji Deshmukh,
Age 55 years, Occ. Sarpanch,
R/o At Post Varvanti,
Taluka and Dist. Dharashiv. ...Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary Rural Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Chh. Sambhajinagar Division,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
3. The chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Dharashiv,
Dist. Dharashiv.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Dharashiv,
Dist. Dharashiv.
5. Mayur Ankush Gaikwad,
Age Major, Occ. Service,
R/o At Post Varvanti,
Taluka and Dist. Dharashiv. ...Respondents.
.....
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sujit A. Patil.
AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2 / State : Mr. S. K. Shirse
Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4 : Mr. Vishnu Kande
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. S. B. Choudhari
.....
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : December 17 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties,
WP 10530-2025
heard finally.
3. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
06/08/2025 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai, whereby the order dated 02/12/2024 passed by
respondent No.2 - the Additional Commissioner - came to be confirmed,
thereby disqualifying the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Village
Varvanti, Taluka and District Dharashiv, under Section 39 (1) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred as 'Act' for
the sake of brevity) on the allegation of misconduct.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that, while functioning as
Sarpanch, she issued a certificate to one Tanaji Ramrao Bagal showing his
private land bearing Gram Panchayat PropertyNo.383 situated at Mauje
Varvanti, Taluka and District Osmanabad, falls within the Gaothan limits,
and that such certificate was allegedly misused for sale of the said land.
Facts in Brief :
5. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Village Varvanti, Taluka
and District Dharashiv. On 01/02/2023, respondent No.5 lodged a
complaint before the Collector, Dharashiv, alleging that the petitioner
issued a bogus certificate to Mr. Tanaji Ramrao Bagal, certifying that land
bearing Gat No.383 falls within the Gaothan limits, though it was allegedly
WP 10530-2025
private property, and that the said certificate was misused for selling the
land.
6. Pursuant thereto, on 28/12/2023, respondent No.2 - the Additional
Commissioner, directed the Chief Executive Officer to conduct an inquiry
and submit a report. The Chief Executive Officer conducted the inquiry and
submitted a report holding that the petitioner had committed misconduct
by issuing an undated certificate.
7. Relying upon the said report, the Additional Commissioner, by order
dated 02/12/2024, disqualified the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch
under Section 39 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred
an appeal before the Hon'ble Minister, which came to be rejected by order
dated 06/08/2025, confirming the order of disqualification.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner :
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire inquiry
conducted under Section 39(1) of the Act is vitiated due to non-compliance
of the mandatory procedure prescribed therein. It is submitted that no
notice whatsoever was issued to the Village Panchayat, as required under
the proviso to Section 39(1) of the Act, and that merely calling upon the
Gramsevak to produce records does not amount to notice to the
Panchayat.
WP 10530-2025
9. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a lady Sarpanch and had
issued the certificate bona fide, on the representation made by Mr. Tanaji
Ramrao Bagal that the certificate was required for educational purposes.
The statement of Bagal was recorded wherein he assured that the
certificate would not be misused. The petitioner had no knowledge or
intention that the certificate would be misused for sale of land. Therefore,
the essential element of willful misconduct is completely absent.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment
of this Court in Dnyaneshwar Shridhar Matkar v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No.3885 of 2023, decided on
03/05/2023), to contend that compliance with the proviso to Section 39(1)
of the Act is mandatory and that notice must be issued to the Panchayat in
its own name, and the say of the Panchayat must be obtained by way of a
resolution before submission of the inquiry report.
11. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Sau. Sunita
Pruthviraj Meshram v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition
No.4074 of 2021, decided on 22/02/2022), wherein it has been held
that the procedure prescribed under Section 39(1) of the Act is mandatory
and non-compliance thereof vitiates the proceedings.
WP 10530-2025
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents :
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner had no authority to issue a certificate certifying private land falls
within Gaothan limits. It is submitted that Mr. Tanaji Ramrao Bagal relied
upon the said certificate to sell the land to a third party, but for such
certificate, the sale would not have been possible.
13. It is submitted that the inquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive
Officer after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and that the
issuance of a certificate facilitating preparation of a false document
squarely amounts to misconduct under Section 39(1) of the Act.
14. It is further submitted that the Gramsevak / Village Development
Officer is the Secretary of the Panchayat and, therefore, issuance of notice
to the Gramsevak and calling upon him to produce records amounts to
sufficient compliance with Section 39(1) of the Act.
Consideration :
15. Having heard the rival submissions, the principal issue that arises for
consideration is whether the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to
the Village Panchayat, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 39(1)
of the Act, has been complied with.
WP 10530-2025
16. This Court, in Sau. Sunita Pruthviraj Meshram (supra), has
categorically held that compliance with the procedure under Section 39(1)
of the Act is mandatory.
17. In Dnyaneshwar Shridhar Matkar (supra), this Court has
elaborately considered the scope of Section 39(1) of the Act and has
unequivocally held that, notice under Section 39(1) of the Act must be
issued to the Panchayat, in its own name, and served at its office. Notice
to the Gramsevak or Secretary does not amount to notice to the
Panchayat. The say of the Panchayat must be obtained by way of a
resolution, authorising a person to represent the Panchayat in the inquiry,
and calling upon the Gramsevak merely for production of records does not
satisfy the statutory requirement.
18. The contention that notice to the Panchayat is only for production of
records has been specifically negatived in Dnyaneshwar Shridhar
Matkar, wherein it has been held that the notice is meant to ascertain the
stand of the Panchayat and is not an empty formality.
19. In the present case, it is undisputed that no notice was issued to the
Village Panchayat and that the Chief Executive Officer submitted his report
solely on the basis of records produced by the Gramsevak. The say of the
Panchayat was never obtained before submission of the inquiry report.
WP 10530-2025
Conclusion :
20. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Dnyaneshwar
Shridhar Matkar and Sau. Sunita Pruthviraj Meshram, the inquiry
conducted under Section 39 (1) of the Act stands vitiated for non-
compliance of the mandatory statutory procedure.
21. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 02/12/2024 passed by the
Additional Commissioner and 06/08/2025 passed by the Hon'ble Minister
are unsustainable in law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, both the orders are hereby quashed and set aside.
22. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate fresh
proceedings under Section 39(1) of the Act, if so advised, strictly in
accordance with law and in compliance with the procedure laid down by
this Court.
23. The petition stands allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute
in the above terms.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )
vj gawade/-.
