NIKHIL ANANDRAO PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 21 ORS

                                                 J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 1088 OF 2026

Nikhil Anandrao Patil                                … Petitioner
Age – 33, Occu. Agriculturist & Social Worker,
R/at Nerli, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur
        Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
    Dist. Kolhapur
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
    Karveer, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur.
5. Prakash Krishnat Dhangar
6. Pravin Rajaram Gavali
7. Ashok Bapu Magdum
8. Dayanand Shamrao Jadhav
9. Suresh Pandurang Patil
10. Vasundhara Sadashiv Chougule
11. Ajita Krishnat Patil
12. Vaishali Uttam Sutar
13. Sumitra Krishnat Sugar
14. Sanjeevani Sanjay Kamble
15. Sunita Prakash Chougule
16. Rani Dnyandeshar Khot
17. Sadashiv Sitaram Chougule
18. Krishnat Pandurang Patil
19. Krishnat Sadashiv Sutar
20. Uttam Balaso Sutar
21. Prakash Shivaji Chougule
22. Secretary / Village Development Officer,
    Grampanchayat, Nerli, Tal. Karveer,
    Dist. Kolhapur                                   … Respondents


                                   …..
Mr. K.K. Sasavade for the Petitioner.
Mr. Drupad S. Patil a/w Rugwed R. Kinkar. Balasaheb Ligade for



  ZIP                                                             1 of 10
                                                     J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


Respondent No.5.
Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondents- State
                                  …..


                                    CORAM      : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                              RESERVED ON : 7th AUGUST, 2026.
                           PRONOUNCED ON : 28th AUGUST, 2026.


JUDGMENT :-


.          Heard.

2.         Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

parties.

3.         The petitioner is taking exception to the order dated 20.02.2026

passed by Minister quashing order of removal passed against

respondent No.5 – Sarpanch by the Commissioner.               The petitioner

along with private respondents are the persons at whose instance action

for removing the respondent No.5 – Sarpanch was undertaken under

Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter

referred to as the “said Act”).

4.         The respondent No.5 was elected as Sarpanch for the tenure from

12.01.2023 to 11.01.2028 of Grampanchayat, Nerli.             The petitioner

and others had made complaint against him on 17.10.2023 and

01.11.2023 for the financial illegalities. The respondent No.4 – Block

Development Officer (BDO) visited office of Village Panchayat twice




     ZIP                                                              2 of 10
                                                    J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


and submitted a report dated 20.12.2023 to the respondent No.3 –

Chief Officer.      The respondent No.3, in turn, submitted report cum

proposal seeking approval to initiate action under Section 39 of the said

Act. After receiving positive response, detail inquiry was conducted and

the report was submitted by the Chief Officer on 09.12.2024 to the

respondent No.2 – Commissioner.

5.         The respondent No.5 was called upon to submit his explanation

for the allegations levelled against him.        After hearing the stake

holders, respondent No.2 – Commissioner removed him vide order

dated 20.06.2025. Being aggrieved, respondent No.5 preferred Appeal

under Section 39(3) of the Act before respondent No.1.         By impugned

judgment, respondent No.1 exonerated respondent No.5 and quashed

the order of removal.

6.         Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order

of the Minister is perverse as the concurrent finding of facts recorded by

the authorities below are interfered with in a casual manner.               It is

concurrently recorded by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the respondent

No.5 was guilty of financial illegalities and misuse of the power.          The

learned Minister passed very cryptic order.      It is submitted that the

Sarpanch is liable under Section 39 of the Act and his conduct is against

the Maharashtra Audit Code. It is further submitted that the documents

relied upon by respondent No.5 which are annexed along with his




     ZIP                                                             3 of 10
                                                      J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


affidavit-in-reply are afterthought. Those were not produced before the

authorities below. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 is guilty of

corrupt practices and he acted in dishonest and non-transparent

manner.

7.         Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Drupad Patil would submit that

respondent No.5 had followed due procedure of law while executing

work and by following norms the work was completed. The work

estimate was got approved vide Resolution dated 29.04.2023. My

attention is adverted to the Resolution, Public Notice, Register

maintained by the Village Panchayat Office and the Certificates.              It is

submitted that the findings of Commissioner are perverse and against

the record.       It is submitted that no notice was ever issued to the

Panchayat Samiti and no report was called for from Panchayat Samiti.

There is violation of Section 39 of the Act.       It is submitted that the

democratically       elected   member   cannot   be   unseated       for      mere

irregularities.

8.         It is further submitted that the various items of the work under

the 15th Finance Commission has already been completed. The

certificates to that effect are produced on record. The allegations

against the respondent No.5 are stated to be baseless. It is further

submitted that the learned minister has considered all aspect of the

matter and exonerated the respondent No.5, though impugned order is




     ZIP                                                               4 of 10
                                                            J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


not happily worded. It is submitted that no case is made out by the

petitioner to cause any interference in the impugned judgment and

order.

9.         The Block Development Officer conducted threadbare inquiry and

submitted report recommending action under Section 39 of the Act. It is

relevant to notice following provision of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads

and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961:


“98. Powers and functions of Block Development Officer

      (1) *******

            (a) *******

           (b) *******

      (2) A Block Development Officer shall—

           (a) have the custody of all papers and documents connected with the

proceedings of meeting of the Panachayat Samiti;

           (b) save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise executive

powers in the Block for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act therein;

           (c) draw and disburse money out of the grant or grants payable to the

Panchayat Samiti under [sub-section (6) of section 155 and section 188];

           (d) in relation to works and development schemes to be undertaken from

block grants, exercise such powers of sanctioning acquisition of property or sale or

transfer thereof as may be specified by the State Government.”



10.        Considering the powers and the functions of Block Development

Officer who conducted threadbare scrutiny of the matter would be the




     ZIP                                                                     5 of 10
                                                   J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


answer to the submission of the respondent that no notice was issued to

the Panchayat Samiti. I find that there is sufficient compliance of

statutory procedure contemplated by Section 39(1) of the Act. The

responsible officer of the Panchayat after collecting the material

submitted report and submitted report to the Chief Officer. Interestingly,

petitioner did not raise any grievance of not issuing notice to the

Panchayat Samiti before respondent No.2 Commissioner or before

Minister. I find no substance in the submission of counsel for the

respondent No.5.

11.     After receiving the complaints from the petitioner and others,

Deputy Chief Officer had directed Block Development Officer to conduct

detailed inquiry. Block Development Officer visited twice to the office of

the Gram Panchayat concerned. After considering the record produced

before him, submitted report on 20.12.2023 recommending action

under Section 39 of the Act. The respondent No.3 Chief Officer solicited

approval from the Commissioner for conducting inquiry. He also

independently conducted inquiry. The respondent No.5 was also heard.

He submitted report on 09.12.2024            to the respondent No.2

Commissioner recommending the action under Section 39 of the Act.

Accordingly the order of removal was passed by the respondent No.2 on

20.06.2025.

12.     The respondent No.5 was extended opportunity of hearing,




  ZIP                                                               6 of 10
                                                 J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


apprising the charges and documents. His explanation was considered.

Thereafter, order was passed on 20.06.2025 under Section 39(1) of the

Act. It reveals from record that the detail reports were submitted by

Block Development Officer as well as Chief Officer dealing with the

charges against the respondent No.5. An independent scrutiny has been

conducted by three authorities namely Block Development Officer, Chief

Officer and the Additional Commissioner to arrive at conclusion that

respondent No.5 is responsible for violating the norms laid down in the

Audit Code of 2011, and norms applicable to financial matters.

13.     The perusal of the impugned order passed by Minister does not

disclose the objective scrutiny of the charges leveled against the

respondent No.5, findings recorded by the authorities below and

consideration of material for the charges. No independent reasons are

assigned for charges leveled against him. The observations are cursory.

The learned Minister was obliged to deal with the findings recorded by

the authorities below to exonerate the respondent No.5. I find that

impugned judgment is unsustainable.

14.     I have gone through the documents produced by the respondent

No.5 along with affidavit in reply. The meeting conducted on

29.04.2023 and minutes of meeting dated 15.05.2023 would ostensibly

disclose that some procedure was followed. The advertisement which is

sought to be produced is undated. The work orders are not placed on




  ZIP                                                             7 of 10
                                                      J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


record. The documents sought to be produced by the respondent No.5

to justify the explanation are doubtful. The certificate of satisfactory

completion of the work issued on 01.07.2023, extracts of the registers

and letter dated 09.09.2024 are produced for the first time in the High

Court.

15.       I am of the considered view that the learned Minister did not take

into account the reports of the sub-ordinate authorities. The respondent

No.5 has also produced couple of documents for the first time in the

High Court. It is necessary to conduct the objective scrutiny before

conducting drastic action against the respondent No.5. I find that the

matter needs to be remanded to the Minister for considering it afresh by

extending opportunity to the parties. The judgments cited by the

counsel for the petitioner and respondents can be gone into by the

respondent No.1.

16.       The ratio laid down by this Court (Aurangabad Bench) on

03.05.2023 in the case of Dnyaneshwar Shridhar Matkar Versus State of

Maharashtra and Ors.1 in Writ Petition No.3885 of 2023 cited by

counsel for the respondent No.5 would be of no avail to him. I have

already observed that the responsible Officer of Panchayat Samiti

conducted inquiry and submitted report to the Chief Officer. There is no

violation of Section 39(1) of the said Act.

17.       The reliance on the judgment of this Court (Aurangabad Bench)

1   2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1023.



    ZIP                                                                8 of 10
                                                     J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


in the case of Sadhuram Jivan Kamble Versus The State of Maharashtra

and Ors., passed on 08.07.2024 in Writ Petition No.11638 of 2022, and

on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayeshree Gajanan

Waghmare & Anr. Versus Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division,

Navi Mumbai & Ors., passed on 11.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.10135

of 2023 along with other connected writ petitions, would not help the

respondent No.5.

18.     In the present case, the Block Development Officer submitted his

report dealing with the charges to the Chief Officer. The Chief Officer

conducted        independent   inquiry   and   submitted    report      to   the

Commissioner. Thereafter, the order of removal was passed. The facts of

cited judgments are distinguishable. In the present case, there is

sufficient compliance of Section 39 of the said Act.

19.     For the foregoing reasons, I, therefore, pass following order:

                                  ::ORDER::

           i]         The impugned judgment and order passed by

           respondent No.1 Minister dated 20.02.2026 is

           quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated to

           the respondent No.1 to decide it afresh as per due

           procedure of law.

           ii]        Parties shall appear before the respondent

           No.1 on 15.09.2026.




  ZIP                                                                 9 of 10
                                                    J-39-WP-1088-2026.doc


           iii]     Rule is made absolute in above terms. There

           shall be no order as to costs.

                                             [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]


20.     After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel for

the respondent would submit that his client is presently working as

Sarpanch of concerned Village Panchayat, as the impugned judgment

was in his favour . The same arrangement is requested to be continued.

21.     The learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the request on the

ground that the respondent has been held guilty of financial illegalities

by Additional Commissioner. It is submitted that the continuation of the

respondent as Sarpanch would not be in the interest of administration

of the Village Panchayat.

22.     By the impugned judgment, the order of removal passed by the

Commissioner was quashed and set aside and the operation of the said

order has not been stayed by this Court. In that view of the matter, the

submission of the counsel appearing for the respondent can be accepted

that his client is working as a Sarpanch. The same arrangement shall be

continued for a period of four (4) weeks from today.

23.     It would be open for the respondent to solicit appropriate interim

orders from the learned Minister. The learned Minister is requested to

decide the matter expeditiously.


                                             [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]


  ZIP                                                               10 of 10