Allowed

Jyoti Prabhakar Khairnar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2023WP/8310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the disqualification of the petitioner from Gram Panchayat membership and her post as Sarpanch. The High Court found the orders perverse as they ignored factual positions regarding dissenting members and urgent lockdown expenses borne by the petitioner's husband, quashing the disqualification orders.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 19th October 2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik and the order dated 19th May 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, are

Jyoti Prabhakar Khairnar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

903 WP 8310.23.doc

¶2

Dusane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8310 OF 2023

¶5

Jyoti Prabhakar Khairnar …Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Eknath Dhokale for Petitioner. Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for State- Respondent No.3.

¶7

Mr. Abhijeet Khade i/by Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶8

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE: 11th October 2023

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Dhokale, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Khade, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶11

2. By the impugned order dated 19th October 2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Dispute Application No. 87 of 2021, the Petitioner is disqualified from the Membership of the Gram Panchayat, Jaulke, Taluka Yeola, District Nashik and as she has been disqualified as Member of Gram Panchayat therefore she is also disqualified as the

¶12

1/4

¶13

903 WP 8310.23.doc

¶14

Sarpanch of the said village Panchayat. It is the contention of the contesting Respondents that she has violated Section 14 1(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 which reads as under:

¶15

Disqualifications .-- [(1) No person shall be a member of Panchayat, or continue as such, who -----

¶16

(g) has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat, or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat; or

¶17

3. The said order of the Additional Collector, Nashik is confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik by order dated 19th May 2023 passed in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 177 of 2022.

¶18

4. It is the contention of Mr. Dhokale, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that amidst strict lock-down due to Covid-19, very urgent work was done on 7th April 2020 to take precautionary measures and therefore for that purpose Petitioner's husband- Respondent No. 7 spent money from his personal funds towards expenses incurred for said work. He further pointed out the Resolution of monthly meeting dated 7th April 2020 passed by the Gram Panchayat. The said

¶19

2/4

¶20

903 WP 8310.23.doc

¶21

Resolution reads as under:

¶22

ववषय dz मांक४ : आलेलयाअरारचेवाचनकरणेवतयावरवनणरयघेणे ठरावक्रमांक४ : आरचयासभेतसदरचाववषयचचरलाआलाअसता Jh iz भाकर रामभाऊ खैरनार यांचया अरारचे सववसतरपणे वाचन करणयातआले - तयांचयाअरारनुसारतयांनी xzk- पंहदीतीलइलेकट् h क मोटरदुरसतीआरवकतबंधाराभरणेकामीरेसीबीलावणेतसेच गावातीलकोरोना iz वतबंधकफवारणीटीसीएलवऔषधफवारणी कलीअसूनसवर े े खचर तयांनीअतयंतवनकडीचीगररमहणूनरोख सवरपातकलाअसूनआलेलाखचरमलावमळावाअशीमागणीक े े ली े े आहे

¶23

यावर महाराषट् xzk मपंचायत लेखासंवहता २०११ चया तरतुदीनुसार xzk मपंचायतीने वबलाiz माणे संबंवधतास धनादेशाने रककम वरर करणे बंधनकारकआहे- असेमत xzk मपंचायतसवचवयांनीमांडले तथावप असेअसताना पवरवससतीनुरपवगररेनुसारवबलरककमही iz भाकर रामभाऊ खैरनार यांनी रोख सवरपात वदलयाचे तयांनी लेखी दसतऐवरादार े े सभेचयावनदशरनासआणूनवदलेआहे

¶24

Jh iz भाकररामभाऊखैरनारयांनीसंबंधीतवबलधारकांनारोखरककम वदले असलयाचे खा =h आरचया सभेचया वनदशरनास पटवून आणून वदलयानेसदरवबलाचीरककमही Jh iz भाकररामभाऊखैरनारयांना अदाकरणयासआरचीसभाबहमतानेमंरुरीदेतआहे ु ु

¶25

5. It is significant to note that the complaint is filed seeking disqualification of the Petitioner by the present Respondent No. 5, who is Member of the Gram Panchayat and Respondent No. 6 Santosh Karbhari Khairnar, husband of Smt. Manisha Santosh

¶26

3/4

¶27

903 WP 8310.23.doc

¶28

Khairnar, the Member. It is significant to note that both Changdev Khanderao Jadhav and Smt. Manisha Santosh Khairnar were present in the meeting of Gram Panchayat dated 7th April 2020 and perusal of the above Resolution does not show that these two members have opposed the said Resolution. In any case, perusal of both the impugned orders do not show that this factual position is taken into consideration. Therefore, the impugned orders are perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶29

6. It is to be noted that for the benefit of villagers/ residents of said Gram Panchayat, very urgent action was required to be taken by the Petitioner in her capacity as the member and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and for that purpose, urgent expenses were borne by the husband of the Petitioner.

¶30

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 19th October 2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Dispute Application No. 87 of 2021 as well as order dated 19th May 2023 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 177 of 2022 and said Gram Panchayat Dispute Application No. 87 of 2021 is dismissed.

¶31

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶32

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2023.10.17 18:07:11 +0530

¶34

4/4

Jyoti Prabhakar Khairnar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Prabhakar Khairnar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Kama Shirsath Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. Masouda R. Sarkhazi Vs Al Mas Co. Op Housing Soc Ltd.

Puran Samadhan Shirsat and Ors. Vs District Deputy Registrar Co. Op Soc Mumbai and Ors.

Rosy Balaswamy Gandi Vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Others

Silver Arch Co-Op Hou. Soc. Limited Vs M.T. Mody and Ors.

Sangmeshwar Education Trust and Anr. Vs Mrs. Sharmila Sudam Gudage and Ors.