{"id":227038,"date":"2010-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-20T14:17:32","modified_gmt":"2015-09-20T08:47:32","slug":"nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                                (1)\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4660 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    Nanasaheb s\/o Dhondiram Mundhe,\n    R\/o Khandali, Tq. Gangakhed,\n    District Parbhani.                                     PETITIONER\n              VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                               \n    1.   Additional Collector, Parbhani.\n    2.   Gram Sevak,\n         Gram Panchayat, Khandali,\n         Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.\n    3.   Gangasagar w\/o Datta Pawar\n                   \n    4.   Datta s\/o Maroti Pawar\n    5.   Laxman s\/o Nivrati Jangale\n    6.   Dnyanoba s\/o Bhanudas Bhosle\n    7.   Chandrakala w\/o Manikrao Pawar\n    8.   Sangram s\/o Manikrao Pawar\n      \n\n\n         All r\/o Khandali, Taluka\n         Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.                        RESPONDENTS\n   \n\n\n\n         .....\n<\/pre>\n
    Mr. S.V. Mundhe, advocate for the petitioner.
\n    Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for the respondent\/State.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. S.S. Thombre, advocate for respondents No. 4,
\n    6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n
         …..\n<\/p>\n
                                [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]<\/p>\n
                                 [DATE : 15th February, 2010]<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGEMENT :\n<\/p>\n
    1.       Challenge in this petition is to order rendered <\/p>\n
    by   learned   Additional   Collector,   Parbhani,   in <\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
    proceedings   under   section   7   of   the   Bombay   Village <\/p>\n
    Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short, “the BVP Act”) read with <\/p>\n
    Rule-3   (1)   of   the   relevant   Rules   bearing   No.<\/p>\n
    209\/A-2\/VP\/CR-5.   By the impugned order, the petitioner <\/p>\n
    was   disqualified   as   Sarpanch   of   village   panchayat, <\/p>\n
    Khandali and was, therefore, discontinued to occupy the <\/p>\n
    post.\n<\/p>\n
    2.<\/p>\n
               Indisputably,   the   petitioner   was   elected   as <\/p>\n
    Sarpanch of village panchayat, Khandali in the month of <\/p>\n
    August, 2005.  He continued to work as such till passing <\/p>\n
    of the impugned order. The respondents No. 3 to 8 filed <\/p>\n
    application before the learned Collector, alleging that <\/p>\n
    the petitioner was disqualified to continue as Sarpanch <\/p>\n
    of   the   village   panchayat   because   he   had   not   held <\/p>\n
    required number of Gram Sabha meetings and thereby had <\/p>\n
    incurred disqualification under section 7 (1) of the BVP <\/p>\n
    Act.   The petitioner was called upon to explain lapses <\/p>\n
    alleged   in   the   application   filed   by   the   said <\/p>\n
    respondents.   He   denied   the   lapses   and   also   submitted <\/p>\n
    that there were defects in arranging the required number <\/p>\n
    of   Gram   Sabhas   at   the   initial   stage   because   he   became <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                       (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
    Sarpanch   during   midst   of   the   year.     The   learned <\/p>\n
    Additional Collector heard the parties.   He called for <\/p>\n
    report   from   the   Block   Development   Officer,   Gangakhed.\n<\/p>\n
    He noticed that the meetings of the Gram Sabha were not <\/p>\n
    called strictly in accordance with Section 7 (1) of the <\/p>\n
    BVP Act and Rule-3 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat <\/p>\n
    (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred <\/p>\n
    to   as   “the   BVP   Rules”).   Consequently,   by   the   impugned <\/p>\n
    order, the petitioner was held disqualified to continue <\/p>\n
    as   Sarpanch   and   the   direction   was   given   to   initiate <\/p>\n
    disciplinary action against the Gram Sevak.\n<\/p>\n
    3.         Crucial question involved in this petition is :\n<\/p>\n
               “Whether         the         petitioner                  incurred <\/p>\n
               disqualification for the reason that he did not <\/p>\n
               hold   the   six   Gram   Sabha   meetings   during   the <\/p>\n
               relevant   financial   year   of   his   tenure   in   the <\/p>\n
               office, as required under Section 7 (1) of the <\/p>\n
               BVP Act ?”\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.         Heard learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
    5.         It   is   of   paramount   significance   to   consider <\/p>\n
    actual   requirement   of   section   7   (1)   of   the   BVP   Act.\n<\/p>\n
    For,   epicentre   of   the   controversy   revolves   around <\/p>\n
    interpretation   of   sub-section   (1)   of   section   7   of   the <\/p>\n
    BVP   Act.     The   petitioner’s   contention   is   that   the <\/p>\n
    requirement was of holding atleast four (4) Gram Sabha <\/p>\n
    meetings and not six (6) Gram Sabha meetings during the <\/p>\n
    financial year.   The Additional Collector took the view <\/p>\n
    that   holding   of   six   (6)   Gram   Sabha   meetings   was <\/p>\n
    mandatory.   The   next   important   aspect   of   the   matter   is <\/p>\n
    whether the Rule 3 (1) of the BVP Rules is of mandatory <\/p>\n
    nature or it is directory in nature notwithstanding use <\/p>\n
    of expression “shall” in the language thereof.  Needless <\/p>\n
    to   say,   proper   interpretation   of   sub-section   (1)   of <\/p>\n
    section   7   and   Rule   3   (1)   is   necessitated   due   to   the <\/p>\n
    nature of controversy in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
    6.         Before   I   proceed   to   consider   the   rival <\/p>\n
    submissions regarding the purport and meaning of section <\/p>\n
    7   (1),   it   may   be   noticed   that   section   7   (1)   has <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                    (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
    undergone   changes   due   to   intervening   amendments   after <\/p>\n
    passing of the enactment in 1958.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        The   juxtaposition   of   section   7   (1)   as   it <\/p>\n
    existed after amendment on 14-09-1994, was as below :\n<\/p>\n
              “7. (1)    There   shall   be   held   at   least   two <\/p>\n
              meetings of the Gram Sabha every financial year
\n              on such date, at such time and place, as may be <\/p>\n
              prescribed   and   if   the   Sarpanch,   or   in   his
\n              absence   the   Upa-Sarpanch   fails   without <\/p>\n
              sufficient cause, to hold any one of such two
\n              meetings,   he   shall   be   disqualified   for
\n              continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, <\/p>\n
              Upa-Sarpanch   or   for   being   chosen   as   such   for <\/p>\n
              the   remainder   of   the   term   of   office   of   the
\n              members of the panchayat.  The decision of the
\n              Collector on the question whether or not there <\/p>\n
              was such sufficient cause shall be final;
\n              Provided that, the Sarpanch may, at any time of
\n              his own motion, and,  shall, on requisition  of
\n              the   Standing   Committee,   Panchayat   Samiti,   or <\/p>\n
              Chief Executive Officer, call a meeting of the
\n              Gram Sabha within the period specified in the
\n              requisition;   and,   on   failure   to   do   so,   the
\n              Chief Executive Officer shall require the Block
\n              Development Officer to call the meeting within <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
               fifteen days from the date he is so required to <\/p>\n
               do.     The   meeting   shall,   notwithstanding   the
\n               provisions of sub-section (3), be presided over <\/p>\n
               by him or any officer authorised by the Block
\n               Development Officer, in that behalf.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.        It appears that prior to amendment by virtue of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra   Act   No.   21   of   2000,   Section   7   (1) <\/p>\n
    contemplated that there shall be held at least three (3) <\/p>\n
    meetings   of   the   Gram   Sabha   every   financial   year.   The <\/p>\n
    words   “three   meetings”   were   substituted   by   the   words <\/p>\n
    “four   meetings”   by   virtue   of   amendment   under   the <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        Section   7   (1)   prior   to   the   Amendment   Act   No. <\/p>\n
    III of 2003 read as under :\n<\/p>\n
              “7 (1)     There   shall   be   held   at   least   four <\/p>\n
              meetings of the Gram Sabha every financial year
\n              on   such   date,   at   such   time   and   place,   and   in
\n              such   manner,   as   may   be   prescribed   and   if   the
\n              Sarpanch,   or   in   his   absence   the   Upa-Sarpanch
\n              fails, without sufficient cause, to hold any of
\n              such   four   meetings,   he   shall   be   disqualified <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                 (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
          for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may <\/p>\n
          be,   Upa-Sarpanch   or   for   being   chosen   as   such
\n          for the remainder of the term of office of the <\/p>\n
          members of the panchayat; and the Secretary of
\n          the panchayat shall also if, prima facie, found
\n          responsible   of   any   lapse   in   convening   such <\/p>\n
          meeting,   be   liable   to   be   suspended,   and   for
\n          being   proceeded   against,   for   such   other
\n          disciplinary   action   as   provided   under   the <\/p>\n
          relevant   rules.   The   decision   of   the   Collector <\/p>\n
          on the question whether or not there was such
\n          sufficient cause shall be final.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Provided, that the Sarpanch may, at any time of
\n          his   own   motion,   and,   shall,   on   requisition   of
\n          the   Standing   Committee,   Panchayat   Samiti,   or <\/p>\n
          Chief Executive Officer, call a meeting of the
\n          Gram   Sabha   within   the   period   specified   in   the <\/p>\n
          requisition;   and,   on   failure   to   do   so,   the
\n          Chief Executive Officer shall require the Block <\/p>\n
          Development Officer to call the meeting within
\n          fifteen days from the date he is so required to
\n          do.   The   meeting   shall,   notwithstanding   the
\n          provisions of sub-section (3), be presided over <\/p>\n
          by him or any officer authorised by the Block
\n          Development Officer in that behalf.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10.   After   amendment   by   virtue   of   Maharashtra   Act <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                    (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
    No. III of 2003, Section 7 (1) read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
             “7 (1)     There   shall   be   held   at   least   six
\n             meetings of the Gram Sabha every financial year
\n             on   such   date,   at   such   time   and   place   and   in <\/p>\n
             such   manner,   as   may   be   prescribed   and   if   the
\n             Sarpanch,   or   in   his   absence   the   Upa-Sarpanch
\n             fails, without sufficient cause, to hold any of <\/p>\n
             such six meetings, he shall be disqualified for
\n             continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, <\/p>\n
             Upa-Sarpanch   or   for   being   chosen   as   such   for
\n             the   remainder   of   the   term   of   office   of   the <\/p>\n
             members of the panchayat; and the Secretary of
\n             the panchayat shall also if, prima facie, found
\n             responsible   of   any   lapse   in   convening   such <\/p>\n
             meeting,   be   liable   to   be   suspended,   and   for <\/p>\n
             being   proceeded   against,   for   such   other
\n             disciplinary   action   as   provided   under   the
\n             relevant   rules.   The   decision   of   the   Collector <\/p>\n
             on the question whether or not there was such
\n             sufficient cause shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
    11.      The Amendment Act No. III of 2003 to relevant <\/p>\n
    provision reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
             “Sec. 2 – Amendment of Section 7 of Bom. III of <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                     (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
               1959   –   In   section   7   of   the   Bombay   Village <\/p>\n
               Panchayats   Act,   1958   (hereinafter   referred   to
\n               as “the principal Act”), –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (a) in sub-section (1), —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (i) for the words “four meetings” the words
\n              “six meetings” shall be substituted;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (ii) after the existing proviso, the following
\n              provisos shall be inserted, namely :-
\n               “Provided   further   that,   a   period   of   not   more <\/p>\n
               than   three   months   shall   be   allowed   to   elapse <\/p>\n
               between the two meetings of the Gram Sabha :
\n               Provided   also   that,   if   the   Sarpanch   or   Upa-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Sarpanch, as the case may be, fails to call any
\n               such   meeting   within   the   specified   period,   the
\n               Secretary shall call the meeting and it shall <\/p>\n
               be presumed that such meeting has been called
\n               with the concurrence of the Sarpanch or, as the <\/p>\n
               case may be, Upa-Sarpanch.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12.       Tracing   back   the   changes   in   the   provisos <\/p>\n
    appended to section 7, it may be gathered that initially <\/p>\n
    holding of the Gram Sabhas was restricted to “two” for <\/p>\n
    every   financial   year   and   there   was   no   disqualification <\/p>\n
    provided for. Subsequently, failure to hold any one of <\/p>\n
    such two Gram Sabhas was held as the lapse which could <\/p>\n
    cause disqualification of the Sarpanch.  Thereafter, the <\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                      ( 10 )<\/p>\n
    law mandated holding of at least three Gram Sabhas out <\/p>\n
    of   four   Gram   Sabhas   in   every   year.   The   legal   position <\/p>\n
    thereafter required holding of six (6) Gram Sabhas in a <\/p>\n
    year,   out   of   which   four   (4)   were   mandatory   to   avoid <\/p>\n
    disqualification.   The   further   amendment   was   to   the <\/p>\n
    effect that the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch was required to <\/p>\n
    hold six Gram Sabhas and non-holding of any of such six <\/p>\n
    Gram   Sabhas,   if   the   present   proviso   is   accepted   as   it <\/p>\n
    is,   would   disqualify   the   Sarpanch   or   Upa-Sarpanch,   as <\/p>\n
    the case may be.  Obviously, the question is whether it <\/p>\n
    is   mandated   that   all   the   six   Gram   Sabhas   are <\/p>\n
    compulsorily required to be held by the Sarpanch or Upa-\n<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch,   if   he   is   to   continue   in   the   post.     The <\/p>\n
    amendment carried out by Act III of 2003, if is taken as <\/p>\n
    it is, would obviously mean that failure of the Sarpanch <\/p>\n
    or Upa-Sarpanch to hold any of the Gram Sabhas, out of <\/p>\n
    the   Six   will   incur   the   disqualification.     Here   comes, <\/p>\n
    the question of purposive interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
    13.        One cannot be oblivious of the fact that after <\/p>\n
    the amendment by Act No. III of 2003, further provisos <\/p>\n
    have   been   added   in   addition   to   the   previous   single <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                     ( 11 )<\/p>\n
    Proviso.  One of the added proviso is thus :\n<\/p>\n
               “Provided   further   that   a   period   of   not   more
\n               than   three   months   shall   be   allowed   to   elapse <\/p>\n
               between the two meetings of the Gram Sabha.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The  proviso  reveals  that   a  gap   of   not   more   than  three <\/p>\n
    months can be allowed in between the two meetings of the <\/p>\n
    Gram Sabha.  Needless to say, a maximum gap could be of <\/p>\n
    three months.   Mr. Mundhe contends that if such gap is <\/p>\n
    permissible,   then   during   the   period   of   one   financial <\/p>\n
    year, the Gram Sabha meetings could be only four and not <\/p>\n
    more.  Otherwise, the proviso becomes superfluous.\n<\/p>\n
    14.        True,   the   words   “four   meetings”   were <\/p>\n
    substituted   by   the   words   “six   meetings”,   without <\/p>\n
    indicating   whether   such   substitution   was   only   in   the <\/p>\n
    first part of the sub-section (1) or also included both <\/p>\n
    parts   thereof.     In   the   first   part   of   sub-section   (1), <\/p>\n
    the number of Gram Sabhas required to be held is stated.\n<\/p>\n
    It   is   followed   by   the   penal   consequences   due   to   non-\n<\/p>\n
    holding of a particular number of Gram Sabhas.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ( 12 )<\/p>\n
    15.        Mr.   Mundhe   would   submit   that   the   very <\/p>\n
    requirement   to   leave   a   maximum   gap   of   three   months   in <\/p>\n
    between   the   two   meetings   as   contemplated   under   second <\/p>\n
    proviso   appended   to   section   7   (1)   of   the   BVP   Act   is <\/p>\n
    indicative   of   intention   of   the   Legislature   to   restrict <\/p>\n
    compulsory   number   of   meetings   only   to   the   extent   of <\/p>\n
    “four”.  He would submit that the amendment pertains to <\/p>\n
    only the first part of sub-section (1) of section 7 and <\/p>\n
    has   no   concern   with   the   subsequent   part.     I   find   it <\/p>\n
    difficult   to   interpret   the   provision   in   such   a   manner <\/p>\n
    only because the proviso allows that period of not more <\/p>\n
    than three months could be kept between the two meetings <\/p>\n
    of   the   Gram   Sabha.     For,   there   is   no   prohibition   in <\/p>\n
    section 7 to hold more than six number of Gram Sabhas. A <\/p>\n
    Sarpanch   is   at   liberty   to   hold   even   a   dozen   of   Gram <\/p>\n
    Sabhas   if   he   so   requires   in   the   interest   of <\/p>\n
    administration   of   the   village   panchayat.   The   proviso <\/p>\n
    contemplates   that   more   than   three   months   shall   not   be <\/p>\n
    allowed to be the gap between the two Gram Sabhas.   It <\/p>\n
    means   the   minimum   gap   of   period   can   be   of   any   period <\/p>\n
    less   than   three   months   if   consecutively   such   meetings <\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                      ( 13 )<\/p>\n
    are held within short period. For example, a Gram Sabha <\/p>\n
    meeting if is held on 26th January, then next Gram Sabha <\/p>\n
    meeting   could   be   held   in   the   first   week   of   February <\/p>\n
    because less than three months gap of time could be in <\/p>\n
    between   such   meetings.     Needless   to   say,   the   second <\/p>\n
    proviso   to   sub-section   (1)   does   not   provide   key   for <\/p>\n
    interpretation   of   section   7   (1)   in   the   context   of <\/p>\n
    mandatory nature of the number of Gram Sabhas which are <\/p>\n
    required to be held.  If at all it provides for the key, <\/p>\n
    then   the   same   is   to   be   interpreted   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
    purposive   and   literal   interpretation   as   per   the   plain <\/p>\n
    language of sub-section (1).   On plain reading of sub-\n<\/p>\n
    section   (1)   of   section   7,   it   is   amply   clear   that   the <\/p>\n
    first part of the sub-section indicates that there shall <\/p>\n
    be at least six meetings of the Gram Sabha whereas the <\/p>\n
    subsequent   part   shows   that   if   the   Sarpanch   or   Upa-\n<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch fails without sufficient cause to hold any of <\/p>\n
    such six meetings, he shall be disqualified.   Needless <\/p>\n
    to say, the intention of the Legislature is to provide <\/p>\n
    for minimum number of the Gram Sabhas which compulsorily <\/p>\n
    are required to be held.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ( 14 )<\/p>\n
    16.        The   purpose   for   providing   minimum   number   of <\/p>\n
    Gram   Sabhas   is   to   ensure   that   there   is   maximum <\/p>\n
    participation   of   the   villagers   in   the   affairs   of   the <\/p>\n
    local   self-government,   namely,   the   village   panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
    The village panchayat should not be the machinery at the <\/p>\n
    hands   of   only   few   elected   members   nor   the   Sarpanch   or <\/p>\n
    Upa-Sarpanch should have the exclusive control over the <\/p>\n
    affairs,   excluding   the   opinion   of   the   villagers   on <\/p>\n
    subjects   of   development,   seems   to   be   the   intention   at <\/p>\n
    the   bottom   of   such   provision.     If   this   aspect   is <\/p>\n
    considered,   it   is   amply   clear   that   the   expression   “at <\/p>\n
    least”   as   used   at   the   beginning   of   sub-section   (1)   of <\/p>\n
    section   7,   indicates   minimum   compulsory   number   of <\/p>\n
    meetings to be held.  It is amply clear that previously, <\/p>\n
    the four of such meetings could be regarded as suffice <\/p>\n
    in   order   to   avoid   disqualification.     However,   now   by <\/p>\n
    virtue   of   the   2003   amendment,   the   concession   given   to <\/p>\n
    avert the disqualification is taken away and all holding <\/p>\n
    of   the   six   of   such   meetings   is   made   mandatory.   The <\/p>\n
    proper   interpretation   of   section   7   (1)   is   that   the <\/p>\n
    minimum   number   of   Gram   Sabha   meetings   is   provided   for <\/p>\n
    without providing any maximum number of the Gram Sabha <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                      ( 15 )<\/p>\n
    meetings.     It   therefore   follows   that   unless   sufficient <\/p>\n
    cause   is   shown   by   the   Sarpanch   or   Upa-Sarpanch   for <\/p>\n
    holding   less   than   required   number   of   Gram   Sabhas,   the <\/p>\n
    disqualification   would   follow.     Had   it   been   that   the <\/p>\n
    expression   “at   least”   would   have   preceded   the   penal <\/p>\n
    clause   in   the   third   sentence   of   sub-section   (1),   then <\/p>\n
    perhaps   there   was   some   scope   to   interpret   sub-section <\/p>\n
    (1)   differently.   ig      The   purposive   and   pragmatic <\/p>\n
    interpretation   of   Section   7   (1)   shows   that   it   is <\/p>\n
    peremptory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
    17.        So far as fact situation in the present case is <\/p>\n
    concerned, it is undisputed that for the year 2005-2006, <\/p>\n
    only   two   Gram   Sabha   meetings   were   held.     In   the   year <\/p>\n
    2006-2007,   only   five   Gram   Sabha   meetings   were   held.\n<\/p>\n
    There was shortfall of four such meetings in the first <\/p>\n
    year 2005-2006 and there was shortfall of one such Gram <\/p>\n
    Sabha meeting in the year 2006-2007.  The petitioner did <\/p>\n
    not   offer   any   explanation   for   omission   to   convene   the <\/p>\n
    required   number   of   Gram   Sabha   meetings.     His   written <\/p>\n
    statement   (Ex-C),   in   fact,   does   not   contain   any <\/p>\n
    sufficient   explanation.     He   simply   denied   the   contents <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                      ( 16 )<\/p>\n
    of   the   relevant   paragraph   of   the   application.     He <\/p>\n
    attributed ill-will to the respondents No. 3 to 8.   In <\/p>\n
    fact,   had   he   sufficiently   explained   the   lapses,   the <\/p>\n
    Collector could have been called upon to consider such <\/p>\n
    explanation.     Needless   to   say,   the   fact   remains   that <\/p>\n
    there was no explanation given by the petitioner in his <\/p>\n
    written   statement   about   omission   to   hold   the   required <\/p>\n
    number of Gram Sabhas.  It is true that he took over as <\/p>\n
    Sarpanch in the midst of the year 2005-2006.  As stated <\/p>\n
    earlier, there was no prohibition imposed to conduct the <\/p>\n
    subsequent meetings during the relevant period after his <\/p>\n
    taking   over   as   Sarpanch.     Moreover,   he   could   have <\/p>\n
    explained   that   he   was   not   required   to   conduct   certain <\/p>\n
    meetings   prior   to   his   taking   over     as   Sarpanch   due   to <\/p>\n
    the reason that he was not in the office  or  had faced <\/p>\n
    certain   difficulties   in   conducting   the   meetings   after <\/p>\n
    his taking over.  Nothing of the sort was done by him.\n<\/p>\n
    18.        Considering the reasons aforestated, I find it <\/p>\n
    difficult   to   interfere   with   the   findings   of   facts <\/p>\n
    rendered   by   the   learned   Collector.   The   impugned   order <\/p>\n
    does   not   suffer   from   arbitrariness   or   perversity.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ( 17 )<\/p>\n
    Hence, in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under <\/p>\n
    Article 227, the impugned order need not be interfered <\/p>\n
    with.     Consequently,   the   petition   is   dismissed.     No <\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]<\/p>\n
                                                       JUDGE  <\/p>\n
    NPJ\/wp4660-09     <\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:06 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4660 OF 2009 Nanasaheb s\/o Dhondiram Mundhe, R\/o Khandali, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Additional Collector, Parbhani. 2. Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat, Khandali, Tq. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-20T08:47:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T08:47:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2799,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T08:47:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-20T08:47:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T08:47:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010"},"wordCount":2799,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010","name":"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T08:47:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanasaheb-vs-additional-collector-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nanasaheb vs Additional Collector on 15 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227038","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=227038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}