Bombay High Court
Vishnu Nivrutti Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 23 September, 2025
1 942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
942 WRIT PETITION NO. 11599 OF 2025
VISHNU NIVRUTTI KOLI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS DISTRICT AND
OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. D. R. Kale
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. D. Patil
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 23.09.2025
PER COURT:
1. Heard.
2. By the present petition the petitioner challenges the
order passed by the Collector disqualifying the petitioner for not
holding the 4 Gramsabha Meetings in the financial year 2022-
2023. The petitioner was also earlier disqualified under Section 7
of the Maharahstra Village Panchayats Act being the Sarpanch of
the village Belkund for having not held the Gramsabha Meetings
for the financial year 2022-2023. The same was challenged before
this court and this court by order dated 07.05.2025 set aside the
order and remitted the matter back to the collector for formulating
charges and to conduct an inquiry. In pursuance of the order
passed by this court, the Collector formulated 4 charges, first being
that the petitioner did not hold 4 Gramsabha Meetings for the year
2022-2023. The second charge is that the first meeting is not held
within 2 months of the starting of the financial year. The third
charge is that the difference between the two Gramsabha Meetings
should not be more than 4 months and the 4 th charge is relates to
the first Gramsabha Meetings being not held within two months for
the financial year 2023-2024.
3. After consideration of the matter, the Collector has
observed that the financial year 2022-2023 meeting are held on
27.09.2022 and 15.03.2023, so also, a special meeting on
28.07.2022. However, there is no reference to the special meeting
and, as such, while considering the Gramsabha Meetings, the
special meeting conducted cannot be taken into consideration.
4. Per contra, with respect to the above findings, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no bar to
hold the special meeting and the Gramsabha Meeting on the same
date and both can be done on the same date. It is observed that the
Gramsabha Meetings are held but they are not as per the
prescribed rules.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
Judgment of the Gangabai Vithal Bade Vs. State of Maharashtra
and ors., 2013 (3) Bom. C. R. 277, more particularly, at paragraphs
no.4 and 5, which are noted below:
"4. No doubt, provisos of S.7 provided various other
requirements of Gram Sabha meetings. In addition to
Section 7, there are rules made for providing procedure
etc. of Gram Sabha meetings. Section 7 on the whole
read with rules indicates that a Sarpanch or in his
absence Upsarpanch should at least hold six meetings
of Gram Sabha every financial year. Proviso and rules
provided inter alia that maximum period of three
months is permitted between two meetings of Gram
Sabha. Sub section (5) of section 7 further provides
that meeting of women members of Gram Sabha should
be held before the regular meeting of Gram Sabha. In
addition to this, prescribed rules, namely, Bombay
Village Panchayats Rules, 1959 further enjoins a
Sarpanch to hold first meeting of Gram Sabha of every
financial year within two months from the
commencement of the year and second should be held
in November every year. They further provide that
Gram Sabha meeting should be held also in August and
January of every year. In my view, since the rule in
respect of disqualification is mentioned in sub section
(1) and since it is a penal provision, strict construction
is required to be given to it. Subsection (1) clearly lays
down a rule that only in case of failure to hold six Gram
Sabha meetings, the Sarpanch would incur
disqualification. Other requirements of meeting are not
included in subsection (1) and so in case of non
observance of other requirements penal consequence of
disqualification is not incurred. In other words, if six
meetings are held in one financial year, but they were
not held as per remaining provisions contained in
section 7 or in the rules, a Sarpanch may not incur
disqualification.
5. Second point that arose in this case is whether the
petitioner/Sarpanch incurred disqualification in case he
did not give notice of meetings. Learned Assistant
Collector held that because of want of notice, he
incurred disqualification. The rules provided that
Sarpanch is responsible for giving seven days notice of
each Gram Sabha meeting. It is observed that seven
days notice for meetings was not given by the
petitioner. The learned Assistant Collector held that
because of this lapse the petitioner would incur
disqualification. I am not in agreement with this ruling
also. I would place reliance only on subsection (1) of
section 7 when I would examine whether the petitioner
incurred disqualification. As said above, other lapses or
infringement of other rules and provisos, in my view
will not incur drastic result of disqualification. The
petition, therefore, should succeed on merit. The
impugned order stands set aside."
6. Accordingly, violation of the rules itself would not lead
to disqualification once the Gramsabha Meetings are held. So also,
the submission of the petitioner that the special meeting and the
Gramsabha Meetings should be held on the same date, merits
consideration.
7. Considering the above submissions, issue notice to the
respondents, returnable on 08.10.2025. The learned AGP accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents / State Authorities.
8. Service of notice by permissible private modes is also
allowed.
9. The impugned order shall remain stayed till the next
date.
10. Prayer for confirmation / vacation of the interim relief
would be considered on the next date.
11. Stand over to 08.10.2025.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
marathe
