Writ Petition No. 3174 of 2016. Case: Sau. Shubhangi Sharad Gondhali Vs Smt. Sonali Santosh More & Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 3174 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. S. S. Kulkarni i/by Mr. Sachin Chavan, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. C. G. Gavnekar i/by Mr. P. P. Raul, Advs., Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP |
| Judges | R. M. Savant, J. |
| Issue | Bombay Village Panchayat Act (now the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act), 1958 - Section 39; Constitution of India - Article 227 |
| Judgement Date | March 16, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.
-
The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 09/03/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Rural Development, by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioner being V.P.M.2016/ Case No.18/PR6 came to be dismissed and resultantly the order dated 01/02/2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, came to be confirmed.
-
The facts giving rise to the above Petition in brief can be stated thus:-
The Petitioner was elected as a member of the Grampanchayat, Revdanda, Tal. Alibag, Dist. Raigad in the elections which were held to the said Grampanchayat in June 2013. Thereafter the elections to the post of Sarpanch were held and the Petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch on 27/07/2013. The Petitioner has been discharging the duties of Sarpanch ever since then. The Respondent No.1 herein who is also a member of the Grampanchayat complained against the Petitioner and requested for an action to be initiated against the Petitioner under Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act (now the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act) 1958 (for short the said Act) for the reasons mentioned in the said complaint dated 21/08/2015. The said letter triggered of the proceedings against the Petitioner. The gravamen of the allegations against the Petitioner was that the Petitioner had issued a certificate that the property belonging to one Sunil Kieshav Naik was in the gaonthan; that the Petitioner had made an entry in the assessment by taking cognizance of the sale deed executed in favour of one Hemakshi Patil, and the third allegation was to the effect that the Petitioner had granted a No Objection Certificate for the construction of 1+3 storeyed building to one Prasad Sharad Gondhali and Santosh Pukhraj Jain.
-
In terms of the procedure that is required to be followed, the Commissioner, Konkan Division, directed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Raigad to submit a report in respect of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner.. The Chief Execution Officer after following the procedure submitted his report dated 16/11/2015 to the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. In the said report the Chief Executive Officer has dealt with each of the allegations made against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was given a copy of the said report of the Chief Executive Officer and the Petitioner was also given a personal hearing by the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner by his order dated 01/02/2016 allowed the said application filed under Section 39(1) of the said Act. The Divisional Commissioner by the said order dated 01/02/2016 has allowed the said application and held that the first two allegations levelled against the Petitioner were proved and the same amounted to a misconduct within the meaning of Section 39 of the said Act, and therefore, removed the Petitioner as a Sarpanch as also from being a member of the Grampanchayat, Revdanda.
-
The said order dated 01/02/2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner was taken exception to by the Petitioner by filing an Appeal before the State Government under Section 39(3) of the said Act. The Appellate Authority i.e. the Hon'ble Minister, Rural Development referred to the material which was placed on record which interalia included the report of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Raigad and thereafter held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial