In An Interim Measure, Bombay HC Directs State To Prefer Govt Officials Over Private Individuals As Administrators Of Gram Panchayats [Read Petition]

As elections in 14,000 gram panchayats across the State of Maharashtra have been deferred due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Bombay High Court while hearing a batch of petitions filed on behalf of gram panchayats across the State, in an interim measure, directed the state government on Wednesday to prefer government officials over private individuals while appointing administrators for gram panchayats.

Division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja heard the petitions challenging the June 25 Ordinance promulgated by the Uddhav Thackeray led state government amending Section 151(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act giving power to the State Government to appoint an Administrator for gram panchayats.

After the ordinance, a subsequent Government Resolution was issued by the State Rural Development Department dated July 13, by which powers have been delegated to the Chief Executive Officer of the respective Zilla Parishad in whose territorial jurisdiction the said Gram Panchayat is situated, to appoint any person as an Administrator of the said Gram Panchayat. The said Government Resolution also directs the Chief Executive Officer of the said Zilla Parishads to take assistance of the District Guardian Minister for the appointment of Administrators to Gram Panchayats.

Moreover, another GR issued by the Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department dated July 14, reiterates that the Chief Executive Officer can appoint anybody even without any experience to the post of an Administrator.

Apart from Pradeep Hulavale, elected member of gram panchayat from Karla village and Vilas Kunjir, two people who are sarpanch in their respective villages from Raigad district Vidyadhar Mokal and Shivaji Mali are also petitioners in the case.

At the outset, Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni informed the Court that on the same issue six writ petitions have already been filed before the Aurangabad Bench and one on the original Side, and an application has been filed before the Chief Justice for clubbing these petitions together. The order on the said application is still awaited.

Noting that since the order on clubbing all petitions together is awaited, Court decided to defer the hearing to July 27.

However, Senior Advocate Milind Sathe prayed for grant of ad-interim relief that no Administrator, at least no private Administrator, be appointed till the next date of hearing as appointments of private administrators is not warranted in law and such mass appointments will have a lasting adverse impact on the local governance in the State.

Whereas, AG Kumbhakoni opposed any such restraint and stated that administration would be hampered if an administrator is not appointed. Since there are a large number of Gram Panchayats in the State and the Government servants are overburdened, they will not be available to be appointed as administrators.

On the other hand, petitioner's counsel Advocate Girish Godbole submitted that the said GRs are politically motivated as they state that Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Parishads may consult guardian ministers of the district in appointing administrators.

The bench noted-

"Because of the Pandemic, elections are not being held. If an administrator is not appointed, the working of the Gram Panchayat will be affected. At the same time, we have to note the concern raised by the Petitioners regarding the appointments of private individuals as administrators. The criterion in the Ordinance of the suitable persons to be appointed as administrators, does not exclude the officers of the State Government or Local Authority. Learned Advocate General also does not assert that the Ordinance has excluded such officers."

However, the Government Resolution dated July 14, 2020 incorporates a condition that the administrator to be appointed should be a resident of the concerned village and whose name is included in the voters list.

Court observed-

"This condition will not be fulfilled by the officers of the State Government and local authority. If this condition in the Government Resolution is held to be mandatory, then it will exclude such officers from being a suitable person to be appointed. This will amount to the Government Resolution modifying the Ordinance, which cannot be done. Therefore, this condition, prima facie, will have to be considered as directory."

Furthermore, the bench noted -

"It is asserted by the Petitioners that the State has always been appointing administrators from its own servants and from Local Authority. We see no reason as to why the Government servants or of the Local Authorities should not be the first choice for the State for appointment as an administrator. However if such officer is not available and the appointment of a private individual is to be made, a reasoned order setting out the circumstances should be passed."

The next date of hearing in the matter is July 27.

Click Here To Download Petition

[Read Petition]