The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the writ petition and restored the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch, holding that minor infractions regarding quorum and procedural lapses in Gram Sabha meetings do not warrant disqualification.
The petitioner, Shaikh Mobin, elected as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Kausadi in September 2022, challenged the District Collector’s order disqualifying him under Sections 7(1) and 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The petitioner sought quashing of the disqualification on grounds that charges regarding non-holding of Gram Sabha meetings or insufficient quorum did not amount to sufficient cause for disqualification.
The case involved multiple rounds of litigation, and the instant writ petition represented the third round of litigation on this issue. Earlier, the court had remanded the matter with directions to the Collector to specify charges and evaluate the sufficiency of reasons for non-holding of meetings. The Collector found that the petitioner failed to hold the mandatory Gram Sabha meetings, specifically the one required in November 2022 and subsequent meetings in 2023.
It was also alleged that several meetings were held with insufficient quorum, violating Rule 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules, 1959. The petitioner had assumed office in October 2022 and claimed “sufficient cause” for the November meeting’s delay, citing lack of guidance and timing.
The petitioner contended that except for one Gram Sabha meeting, all others were effectively held and the infraction regarding quorum was marginal. He emphasized his bona fide reasons for not holding the meeting immediately upon assuming office and noted that agricultural activity limited villagers’ attendance.
The Bench comprising Justice Arun R. Pedneker thoroughly examined Section 7(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, and Rule 10 of the Rules of 1959. It reiterated precise holding from Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad[1] emphasizing that disqualification is a serious step requiring strict adherence to the statutory provisions and substantial proof of failure without sufficient cause.
The Court observed that holding fewer than six meetings or minor infractions in quorum do not per se justify disqualification. The petitioner’s failure to hold the meeting in November 2022 was due to bona fide reasons and insufficient official guidance. The Court also noted that subsequent meetings were conducted with substantial quorum and procedural norms, and minor quorum deficiencies did not invalidate the meetings.
In result, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the disqualification order, and restored the petitioner as Sarpanch. The Court ruled that a mere procedural infraction such as marginal quorum deficiency or delayed meeting does not satisfy grounds for statutory disqualification; disqualification demands proof of wilful neglect without sufficient cause.
Cases relied on:
1. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1339
2. Shri Manohar s/o. Dnyaneshwar Pote vs. The Collector, Jalna and Ors., Writ Petition No. 9427/2022, judgement dated 24.02.2023
3. Gangabai Vithal Bade vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2013 [3] Bom. C.R. 277
Appearances:
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. R.D. Khadap, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.D. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. D.M. Shinde Advocate h/f. Mr. R.K. Ingole, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 14.
Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent No. 8.
Mr. R.D. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 7, 10, 12 and 13.
[1] (2012) 4 SCC 407
