[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Savakar Bhausaheb Shirsath And Others vs The Honble Minister Rural Development ... on 21 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2474
(1) wp-12807-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12807 OF 2025
1] Savakar S/o Bhausaheb Shirsath,
Age: 41 years, Occu: Sarpanch
R/o. Sirasgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
2] Dipali W/o Tatyasaheb Nimbalkar,
Age: 43 years, Occu: Member,
R/o. Sirasgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
3] Sonali W/o Rameshwar Varade,
Age:43 years, Occu: Member,
R/o. Sirasgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
4] Vijay S/o Vishwanath Varade,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Member,
R/o. Sirasgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar. ..Petitioners
Versus
1] The Hon'ble Minster,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
3] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
4] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Vaijapur,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
5] Gram Sevak,
Gram Panchayat Sirasgaon,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
6] Babasaheb S/o. Anand Salve (Died)
Through his Legal Heir,
(2) wp-12807-2025.odt
Prashant S/o Babasaheb Salve,
Age- Major, Occu.: Agril,
R/o. Sirasgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar. ..Respondents
...
Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. M. B. Ubale, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 05th JANUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 21st JANUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. The petitioners impugns judgment and order dated
26.09.2025 passed by Hon'ble Minister in Oghih,e&2024@iz-dz-
131@iajk&6, thereby upholding order dated 03.09.2024 passed by
Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Case
No.58, whereby petitioners have been removed from office of
members of Village Panchayat under Section 39 of Maharashtra
Village Panchayat Act (for short 'MVP Act').
3. In February 2021 petitioners were elected as members of
Grampanchayat, Sirasgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar. The petitioner no.4 was elected as Up-Sarpanch.
The respondent no.6 moved an application under Section 39(1) of
MVP Act before respondent no.2/Divisional Commissioner praying
(3) wp-12807-2025.odt
for removal of petitioners from office of member of Grampanchayat
alleging that petitioners have directly or indirectly protecting
encroacher and passed Resolution in meeting dated 29.12.2021
permitting disposal of building material.
In pursuance to aforesaid complaint, respondent no.3/Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad caused enquiry and submitted its
report dated 09.01.2024 to respondent no.2. The Divisional
Commissioner relying upon aforesaid enquiry report held that in
meeting dated 29.12.2021 illegal Resolution has been passed for
auction of old material of school building. The said meeting was
held in absence of Sarpanch. Eventually, passed impugned order of
removal of petitioners from office of members of Village Panchayat.
The petitioners filed Appeal before Hon'ble Minister under Section
39(1) of MVP Act. However, Hon'ble Minister rejected Appeal.
Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. Mr. Gore, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners would
submit that petitioners are wrongly held guilty of misconduct in
terms of Section 39 of MVP Act. The auction of debris/building
material was conducted as per estimate prepared by Zilla Parishad.
No loss has been caused to Village Panchayat on account of
Resolution of Village Panchayat. The petitioners, who are duly
elected as members of Village Panchayat cannot be casually
removed by administrative action. The allegations against
(4) wp-12807-2025.odt
petitioners does not fit within definition of misconduct or
disgraceful behaviour contemplated under Section 39 of MVP Act.
He would further submit that Divisional Commissioner relied upon
enquiry report dated 09.01.2024 submitted by Chief Executive
Officer. The observations in report are not sufficient to make out
case for removal of petitioners from post of member.
5. The learned Advocates appearing for respondents supports
impugned order.
6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of
material tendered into service before this Court, core issue that
requires consideration in present Writ Petition is whether alleged
act of petitioners, thereby passing Resolution in meeting dated
29.12.2021 and 28.10.2022 is sufficient to hold them liable for
removal under Section 39 of MVP Act. Section 39 of MVP Act
states as under:
"39. Removal from office.
[(1) The Commissioner may, --
(i) remove from office any member or any Sarpanch or Upa-
Sarpanch who has been guilty of misconduct in the
discharge of his duties, or of any disgraceful conduct, or of
neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty, or is
persistently remiss in the discharge thereof. A Sarpanch or
an Upa-Sarpanch so removed may at the discretion of the
Commissioner also be removed from the panchayat ; or
(ii) remove from office the member, Sarpanch or, as the case
may be, Upa-Sarpanch, if not less than twenty per cent. of
(5) wp-12807-2025.odt
the total number of voters in the village who have paid all
dues of the panchayat regarding taxes on buildings and
lands and water charges, make a complaint that the
annual accounts and the report of the expenditure incurred
by the panchayat on the development activities are not
placed before the Gram Sabha; and the information thereof
is not displayed on the notice board as required by sub-
section (1) or (1A) of section 8 :
Provided that, no such person shall be removed from office
unless, in case of clause (i), the Chief Executive Officer or in
case of clause (ii), the Deputy Chief Executive Officer as
directed by the Chief Executive Officer; under the orders of
the Commissioner, holds an inquiry after giving due notice
to the panchayat and the person concerned; and the person
concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard and thereafter the Chief Executive Officer or, as the
case may be, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer concerned,
though the Chief Executive Officer, submits his report to the
Commissioner. The inquiry officer shall submit his report
within a period of one month:
Provided further that, the Commissioner shall, after giving
the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being
heard, take a decision on the report submitted by the Chief
Executive Officer or, as the case may be, the Deputy Chief
Executive Officer, within a period of one month from the
date of receipt thereof.]"
7. Perusal of aforesaid provision would show that member of
Village Panchayat can be removed from his office, if he has been
found guilty of misconduct in discharge of his duty or in disgraceful
conduct, or of neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty, or is
persistently remiss in the discharge thereof.
8. Single Judge of this Court in case of Ankush Achutrao
Raut and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1
relying upon observations of Supreme Court in case of State of
1 2022 (1) Mh.L.J. 202.
(6) wp-12807-2025.odt
Punjab Vs. Ram Singh2 observed that expression illegal,
irregular and misconduct being relative terms are to be construed
with reference to subject matter.
9. In absence of material on record to suggest that Resolution
passed by members of Village Panchayat was with wrongful
intention and results in loss to Grampanchayat, elected
representatives cannot be removed unless allegations against
members are sufficient to hold them guilty of misconduct.
10. In present case, petitioners are signatories to Resolution of
Grampanchayat, whereby they permitted auction of debris of
dilapidated school building. The enquiry report submitted by Chief
Executive Officer nowhere suggests that impugned Resolution was
any way act of misconduct on part of petitioners in discharge of
their duties. Nothing is brought on record to show that Resolution
was passed with ill-intention or for personal benefit of petitioners.
The record indicates that Sub Divisional Engineer of Zilla Parishad
(Works), Vaijapur has given general report regarding dismantling
work of dilapidated school building, which was 50 years old and in
totally damaged condition. The estimate of work demonstrates
that total cost of debris material was Rs.1,04,074/-, whereas total
cost of demolition was Rs.1,17,371/-. The upset value was assessed
to minus Rs.13,297/-. It appears that, by Resolution supported by
2 AIR 1992 SC 2188.
(7) wp-12807-2025.odt
petitioners, Village Panchayat was benefited. Therefore,
conclusion drawn by Divisional Commissioner while holding
petitioners guilty under Section 39(3) of MVP Act is without
independent discussion on grounds of Appeal raised by petitioners.
11. The order of Hon'ble Minister sans requisite reasons. There
is no basis for observations that petitioners colluded with Gram
Sevak or misappropriated amount on the basis of Resolution
permitting auction of debris of school building.
12. At this stage it is informed that after removal of petitioners,
election of Sarpancha and Up-Sarpanch have been held.
13. In light of aforesaid facts, Writ Petition is allowed in terms
of prayer Clause (B). However, this order would not affect election
of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch that took place after removal of
petitioners.
14. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026
