Bombay High Court

JANABAI SAMBHAJI KAWADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner was duly served with specific charges and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the alleged default.

Summary

Janabai, the elected Sarpanch of Badnapur Gram Panchayat, was disqualified under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act for allegedly failing to hold the required monthly meetings between March and July 2023. Respondents 3‑7 filed a dispute under Sections 7 and 36, and the District Collector issued a notice that included the dispute application specifying the alleged defaults. The petitioner argued that she was not served with a specific charge and that the notice was defective, relying on earlier case law. The Court examined the notice, found that it sufficiently disclosed the charge of non‑conduct of meetings and that the petitioner had an opportunity to reply, placing the burden on her to explain the default. Finding her explanation inadequate and noting no prejudice, the Court upheld the Collector’s disqualification order and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the notice served on the Sarpanch under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act must contain specific charges to satisfy due process requirements.
Whether the absence of detailed charge particulars vitiates the disqualification proceeding under Sections 7 and 36 of the Act.
Whether the petitioner’s explanation for not conducting the monthly meetings is sufficient to avoid disqualification.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act — s. 36, 7

Subjects

Disqualification
Sarpanch
Village Panchayat Act
Section 36
Section 7
Notice requirements
Due process
Monthly meetings
Gram Sabha
Writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:9719
(1) wp-1125-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.1125 OF 2024

Janabai W/o. Sambhaji Kawade,
Age: 38 Years, Occu. Agri.
R/o. Badnapur, Tq. Jintur
Dist. Parbhani. ..Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary.

2. The District Collector,
Parbhani.

3. Subabai W/o Nagorao Wakale,
Age: 71 years, Occu. Household.

4. Vijay S/o. Shankarrao Wakale,
Age: 35 years, Occu. Agri.

5. Ramchandra S/o Vithoba Chibhade,
Age: 55 years, Occu. Agri.

6. Meera W/o Munjaji Chibhade,
Age: 30 years, Occu. Household.

7. Indubai W/o Uttam Kawade,
Age: 65 years, Occu. Household.

8. The Gram Sevak,
Grampanchayat Badnapur,
Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. ..Respondents

...
Mr. Umakant Deshmukh h/f Mr. Manjit S. Shaikh, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. D. A. Mane h/f Mr. A. R. Pawade, Advocate for Respondent
No.5.
Respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 are served.
Mr. A. S. Kawade, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
…
(2) wp-1125-2024.odt

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 04th MARCH, 2026.
JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of

parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner impugns order dated 22.12.2023 passed by

District Collector, Parbhani in Proceeding No.2023/GA/GPE-2/Case

No.14, whereby petitioner has been disqualified from post of

Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Badnapur under Section 36 of

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act (for short ‘MVP Act’) on

ground that petitioner failed to conduct monthly meetings of

Village Panchayat during period from March 2023 to July 2023.

3. The respondent nos.3 to 7 initiated proceeding under

Sections 7 and 36 of MVP Act seeking disqualification of petitioner

from post of Sarpanch on ground that petitioner failed to conduct

first Gram Sabha, so also monthly meetings from 24.02.2023 in

terms of Section 7 and incurred disqualification in terms of Section

36 of MVP Act. The petitioner was served with notice of proceeding

initiated before District Collector. The petitioner caused her

appearance and filed a detailed reply. The District Collector after

considering rival contentions, passed order of disqualification of

petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. Mr. Umakant Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for

petitioner submits that petitioner has been directly elected as
(3) wp-1125-2024.odt

Sarpanch in Month of December-2022. The respondent nos.3 to 7

were elected as Members of Grampanchayat from rival group.

They created obstacles in conduct of monthly meetings so as to

create ground for disqualification/removal of petitioner. Although

petitioner complained about their conduct to Block Development

Officer, no cognizance was taken. Ultimately, disqualification

proceeding was moved by respondent nos.3 to 7 before District

Collector. The petitioner was not served with notice containing

specific charges nor she was apprised of such charges or called

upon to answer charges during disqualification proceeding. He

would, therefore, urge that impugned order is not sustainable in

law. In support of his contentions he heavily relies upon

observations of this Court in cases of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle Vs.

Additional Collector & Ors.1 and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. State

of Maharashtra and Others2.

5. Per contra, Mr. Mane, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent nos.3 to 7 supports impugned order. He would point

out that petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing

before District Collector. The copy of dispute application filed by

respondent nos.3 to 7 was served alongwith notice upon petitioner.

She filed her detailed reply on point of charges regarding default in

conduct of meetings. The District Collector after considering rival

1 2010 (4) Bom. C.R. 700.
2 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 597.
(4) wp-1125-2024.odt

submissions passed impugned order. As such, no prejudice is

caused to petitioner. In support of his contentions he relies upon

observations of this Court in cases of Shobhabai W/o Devidas

Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ

Petition No.4807/2020 decided on 02.12.2021) and Pralhad

Bhikaji Bargaje Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.3.

6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties, only issue that arises

for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether petitioner

was duly served with charges and whether enquiry and order

passed against petitioner is vitiated.

7. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner

invited attention of this Court to notice dated 18.08.2023 served

upon petitioner in deference to dispute filed by respondent nos.3 to

7, which reads thus:-

“ग्रामपंचायत बदनापूर, ता. जितूर, जि. परभणीच्या माहे जानेवारी, २०२३ पासून ग्रामसभा व
मासिक सभा झालेली नसल्याचे अर्जदार यांनी कळवून सरपंच व ग्रामसेवक यांच्याविरुध्द कार्यवाही
करण्याची विनंती केली आहे.
सबब, ग्रामपंचायत बदनापूर, ता. जितूर, जि. परभणीची माहे जानेवारी, २०२३ पासून किती
ग्रामसभा व मासिक सभा झाल्या याचा अहवाल या कार्यालयास तात्काळ सादर करण्यात यावा. तसेच
मासिक सभा व ग्रामसभा झाली किंवा नाही, याबाबत संबंधीत ग्रामसेवक यांच्याकडू न मासिक सभा व
ग्रामसभा संबंधीत अभिलेख आजच ताब्यात घेवून उ‌द्या दिनांक १८/०८/२०२३ रोजी सकाळी
११.०० वाजता जिल्हाधिकारी कार्यालय, परभणी येथे दाखल करण्यात यावे .”

He submitted that no specification of charges to be answered

are incorporated in notice. The notice sans particulars, as to which

meetings have not been convened by petitioner as per law.

3 (2016) 6 All MR 721.
(5) wp-1125-2024.odt

According to him, in absence of specific charge contained in notice,

proceeding before District Collector stood vitiated. Mr. Deshmukh

would place reliance on circular dated 21.11.1989 issued by Joint

Secretary of Rural Development Department, Mantralaya,

Maharashtra State to contend that in case of disqualification

proceeding for default in conducting statutory meetings, Sarpanch

must be given sufficient opportunity to explain reasons. The report

to that effect shall be called from Block Development Officer.

According to Mr. Deshmukh, failure to call such report would also

vitiate proceeding of disqualification.

8. Perusal of record and proceeding before District Collector

depicts that respondent nos.3 to 7 filed Dispute Application under

Sections 7 and 36 of MVP Act. In paragraph no.3 there is specific

stipulation that petitioner-Sarpanch and Gram Sevak failed to

conduct monthly meeting from 24.02.2023 onwards without valid

reasons. In paragraph no.5, they have specified that petitioner-

Sarpanch and Gram Sevak defaulted in conduct of four monthly

meetings. As such, incurred disqualification. The District

Collector issued notice dated 18.08.2023, which stipulates that copy

of dispute application tendered by respondent nos.3 to 7 is

appended alongwith notice. The combine reading of notice dated

18.08.2023 alongwith application for disqualification would reveal

that petitioner was given clear notice as to the proposed action and
(6) wp-1125-2024.odt

grounds therefor. The petitioner filed her reply/written statement

in which she pleaded in paragraph no.6 that she took all effort to

conduct monthly meetings from March 2023 to July 2023. The

Gram Sevak co-operated her. However, respondent nos.3 to 7

obstructed to conduct meetings. The respondent no.8-Gram Sevak

filed his reply before District Collector, wherein he states that

although he apprised petitioner/Sarpanch to conduct monthly

meeting during period from March 2023 to July 2023 by written

communication, petitioner failed to communicate him agenda of

meeting. The aforesaid stipulation clearly demonstrates that

petitioner defaulted in conduct of monthly meeting contemplated

under Section 36 of MVP Act.

9. The petitioner has heavily relied upon observations of this

Court in cases of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle and Sunil Daulat

Patil and (supra), wherein this Court observed that notice issued

by District Collector does not disclose charges and petitioner was

handicapped in tendering her reply, as no charges were indicated

in notice. However, application or complaint received by

Authorities were not supplied to petitioner. In case of Sunil

Daulat Patil (supra) this Court observed that petitioner therein

was not served with notice containing specific charges or petitioner

had no occasion to reply charges.
(7) wp-1125-2024.odt

10. In present case, record indicates that petitioner was served

with notice prescribing specific provision under Act, which attracts

disqualification. The notice was accompanied by application

tendered by respondent nos.3 to 7, wherein there is specific

stipulation regarding default in conduct of monthly meeting from

March 2023 to July 2023. The petitioner pin pointedly replied

before District Collector on such allegations and stated that

because of obstruction created by respondent nos.3 to 7 she could

not conduct four monthly meetings for period referred. Apparently,

petitioner was well aware about charges and submitted pin pointed

reply answering same. No prejudice appears to have been caused

to petitioner because notice does not specify default to conduct

meeting for aforesaid period. The petitioner got every opportunity

to defend herself on charge of not conducting monthly meetings for

period from March to July 2023.

11. Similar contingency has been dealt with by this Court in case

of Shobhabai W/o Devidas Chavan (supra) and after referring to

observations made in case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle (supra), this

Court observed that where petitioner was served with a copy of

complaint sufficiently disclosing charges and had replied to said

charges, law laid down in case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle (supra)

would not apply. Similarly, in case of Pralhad Bhikaji Bargaje

(supra) similar issue has been dealt with by this Court and
(8) wp-1125-2024.odt

observed that if Sarpanch fails to give sufficient reasons for not

holding meetings, he is liable to be disqualified under Section 7(1)

and 36 of MVP Act. It is further observed that if subjective

satisfaction of District Collector is based on sufficient material, no

interference is called for. In paragraph no.12 while dealing with

observations of this Court in case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle

(supra), this Court observed as under:

“12. In the case of Mangala (supra) observations are made
with regard to necessity of presence of Sarpanch in the
meeting which is called as per the aforesaid provision. There
is no dispute over the proposition made in the said case. In
the case of Pratibha (supra) it is observed that specific
charges are to be informed to the person like present
petitioner as the proceeding involves penal consequences like
disqualification. There is no dispute over this proposition.
This Court has already quoted the material involving
specific allegation against the present petitioner and it
cannot be said that he did not know that there is allegation
against him that he did not hold the specified number of
Gram Sabhas. The reply given by him itself shows that he
knew as to what was the charge against him. The burden to
show that there was "sufficient cause" for not holding Gram
Sabha was on the Sarpanch and he failed to discharge that
burden of proof.”

12. In present case, explanation tendered by petitioner for not

conducting monthly meeting cannot be countenanced. The

respondent no.8-Gram Sevak has specifically stated in his reply

that he had given written communication to petitioner to provide

agenda of meeting and conduct monthly meetings. However, she

failed to take necessary steps. On other hand, petitioner alleges

that respondent nos.3 to 7, who are political rivals created

obstruction in conduct of meetings. She did not give particulars of
(9) wp-1125-2024.odt

such obstructions in reply. There is no plausible explanation in her

reply for not conducting four monthly meetings. As such,

conclusion drawn by District Collector that petitioner incurred

disqualification in terms of Sections 7 and 36 of MVP Act cannot be

faulted.

13. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

14. Rule stands discharged.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/March-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…