[Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act] Sarpanch Not Disqualified For Holding Consecutive Meetings: Bombay High Court

Justice Arun Pednekar of the Aurangabad bench set aside the disqualification of the Sarpanch of a village in Jalna District who held four Gram Sabha meetings in a short period.

“…the petitioner (Sarpanch) has held four [4] meetings of Gram Sabha after lifting of the prohibitory orders under the Disaster Management Act and prohibition under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus he has not violated provisions of Section 7 of the 1958 Act, which contemplates that there has to be four meetings every financial year and that there should not be a gap of more than four months in between two meetings…the Act does not contemplate holding of meetings in a particular way”, the court observed.

The petitioner (Sarpanch) was elected on February 12, 2021. He conducted the first Gram Sabha meeting about seven months later on September 3, 2021. Thereafter he conducted three more meetings till the end of the Financial Year 2021-22.

A resident of the village filed an application before the Collector seeking petitioner’s disqualification as the Sarpanch stating that he violated Section 7 of the 1958 Act. Section 7(1) of the 1958 Act provides that there have to be four meetings in the financial year and there cannot be gap of more than 4 months between the meetings.

On September 8, 2022, the Collector, Jalna disqualified the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. He reasoned that the first meeting was not held within first two months of the Financial Year and there is no explanation for conducting four consecutive meetings in a short period.

The petitioner submitted that at the time of his election, COVID-19 was prevalent, and the government had passed orders staying the conduct of Gram Sabhas. Not only that, but the Collector also issued prohibitory orders under section 144 CrPC from April 5, 2021, to June 15, 2021. He conducted the required number of meetings within the relevant financial years after the prohibitory orders were lifted, the petitioner argued.

The Gramsevak supported the petitioner and submitted that there is no requirement of the first meeting to be held within first two months of the Financial Year in the 1958 Act. This is actually a Rule in the Rules framed under the Act. Violation of Rule cannot lead to disqualification, the Gramsevak argued.

The court noted that as per the government circular dated May 12, 2020, issued by the Department of Revenue and Forest, Disaster Management, Relief and Rehabilitation, the meetings of Gram Sabha were directed to be stalled until further orders or for a period of one year. This order was continued after its period ended.

Further, the Collector also issued orders under section 144 CrPC on April 5, 2021. Thus, the petitioner did not commit any violation, the court held.

The court said that the petitioner complied with 1958 Act even if the period of COVID-19 when the State had directed not to hold the meetings of Gram Sabha is excluded as he indisputably conducted the four meetings.

The court also reiterated that mere non-performance of statutory duty will not disqualify and elected member of the panchayat unless he is unable to give explanation for the violation.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 9427 of 2022

Case Title – Manohar s/o. Dnyaneshwar Pote v. Collector, Jalna and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 124