This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an application seeking disqualification of a Sarpanch for alleged failure to hold monthly village Panchayat meetings. The single-judge bench held that the Act does not prohibit gaps exceeding 30 days between meetings and found no violation.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
908 WP.6561.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
908 WRIT PETITION NO. 6561 OF 2017
KRUSHNA MADANRAO SABALE VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Amitkumar B. Adsul. AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S. N. Kendre.
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATE : 08th November, 2017.
ORDER:
2 The Respondent is the Sarpanch of village Panchayat Gaundgaon, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani. The Petitioner had filed a dispute before Respondent No.2 seeking disqualification of Respondent No.3 under the provisions of Section 36 proviso 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act for not holding the monthly meeting of village Panchayat Gaundgaon, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani. The learned Collector has dismissed the said application raising dispute by the impugned order and as such, the Petitioner / original Disputant has
approached to this Court.
2
908 WP.6561.17.odt
3 It appears that the disqualification of Respondent No.3 Sarpanch sought mainly on the ground that he has failed to call the monthly meeting of village Panchayat. However, it appears that Respondent No.3 Sarpanch has called the meeting in every month and as such, there is no violation of the provisions of Section 36 proviso 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The learned Additional Collector has rightly observed that there is no provisions that there should not be a gap of more than 30 days between two meetings. In view of the same, I do not find any substance in this writ petition. The writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.
[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]
ndm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to call a monthly village Panchayat meeting strictly mandates disqualification under the Act.
Whether a gap exceeding 30 days between meetings constitutes a violation of the mandatory provisions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KRUSHNA MADANRAO SABALE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SARPANCH OF VILLAGE PANCHAYAT GAUNGAON
V. K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
