KALPANA RAJESH CHAVANversusTHE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:45577
                                               1              WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 13061 OF 2026
                                     KALPANA RAJESH CHAVAN
                                             VERSUS
                          THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER CHH.
                                  SAMBHAJINAGAR AND OTHERS
                                                    ...
                     Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. V. D. Sapkal (Senior Advocate)
                                a/w Rohit N. Patil i/b Mr. R. D. Khadap.
                      Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. D. A. Mane h/f Mr. N. R.
                                                 Pawade.
                                                    ...

                                           CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.
                                           DATE : 30.09.2026
                     FINAL ORDER :-


                     1.    Heard the respective parties at length.


                     2.    The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

                     seeking limited relief during pendency of the substantive

                     appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner No.1,

                     Chh. Sambhajinagar. The petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of

                     village Kavada, District Parbhani was elected as Sarpanch from

                     public in the year 2022. While the petitioner was discharging

                     her duties as Sarpanch, respondent No.4 has filed a complaint

                     under Section 7(1), 36 and 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra

                     Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”) seeking

                     disqualification of the petitioner before the District Collector,

                     Parbhani. It is alleged by respondent No.4 that the petitioner
                          2              WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



did not hold the Gram Sabha and monthly meetings in

accordance with Section 7(1) and 36 of the Act. It is also

alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated funds of the

14th and 15th finance commission by creating forged documents

and has withdrawn the funds of Gram Panchayat by issuing

cheque in her own favour and her husband. Upon such

application with allegations being filed, notice was issued to

the petitioner. The petitioner filed her say to the application.

After considering the say filed by the petitioner, the District

Collector, Parbhani has passed an order on 11.08.2026,

declaring the petitioner to be disqualified for holding the post

of Sarpanch under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act.


3.    So far as the allegations regarding failure to comply with

Section 7(1) and 36 of the Act, is concerned the challenge to

the same has been turned down. Feeling aggrieved by the

order of disqualification issued by the Collector, Parbhani dated

11.08.2026, the petitioner has filed an appeal before

Respondent No.1/Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chh.

Sambhajinagar. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has also

filed an application for stay to the impugned order issued by

the Respondent No.2/Collector. This application filed by the

petitioner came to be rejected by the Additional Divisional
                         3               WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



Commissioner vide order dated 15.09.2026.         Therefore, the

petitioner has approached this Court with a limited prayer to

grant stay to the impugned order during pendency of the

appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chh.

Sambhajinagar.


4.    Learned senior advocate Mr. Sapkal appearing for the

petitioner submitted that, the order passed by the Collector

stands vitiated on the count that there are no specific charges

framed against the petitioner, so as to enable her to submit an

effective reply. It is further submitted that in the absence of

any report or an inquiry in support of the allegations, the

charges levelled against the petitioner could not have been

proved. According to the senior advocate, the order impugned

is passed without conducting any inquiry and without there

being any proof in support of the allegations made by

respondent No.4. In the present case, the only allegations

against the petitioner are that, the husband of the petitioner

has withdrawn certain amounts i.e. like Rs.1,81,000/- on

01.07.2023   and   Rs.2,00,000/-    on   12.12.2023       for   the

construction of the C.C. Road and Nali under the Dr.

Babasaheb Ambedkar Social Development Scheme 2023. This

work according to the petitioner was given to the Gram
                            4            WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



Panchayat itself by the Block Development Officer. The work

was given administrative sanction. However, since the fund

were not available with the Gram Panchayat for initial work,

the required amount was spent by the husband of the

petitioner and after receiving the funds for the work done by

the Gram Panchayat, the amount so spent has been transferred

by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the husband of the

petitioner. Similar is the case in relation to other works done

by the Gram Panchayat, for which the funds were not

available. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner has made

available the necessary funds for which he has been

subsequently reimbursed by issuing cheque. According to him,

all the cheques have been officially issued and there is no audit

objection in this regard.


      He further submitted that respondent No.4 is making

allegations about misappropriation of the amounts stated by

him which according to the petitioner does not fall within the

purview of Section 14(1)(g) of the Act. If misappropriation is

alleged, the same will have to be proved by conducting

appropriate inquiry, after granting an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner to explain the allegations made against her and

only after submission of report an order can be passed thereon.
                           5              WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



Only on the basis of such report, an order under Section 14(1)

(g) can be passed. In the present case, no such inquiry has

been conducted, nor is there any report, placed on record

substantiating the allegations made against the petitioner and

her husband.     Merely on the basis of allegations made by

respondent No.4, the order impugned, has been based, which

is totally against the scope of Section 14(1)(g) of the Act.


5.    He submits that in spite of agitating aforementioned

ground before the District Collector, Parbhani as well as the

Additional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar, respondent

No.1 has passed the order refusing to grant stay to the order

dated 11.08.2026 passed by the Collector. Due to refusal to

grant stay, the petitioner is facing serious civil consequences

and she is likely to be removed from the office if the stay is not

granted. Considering the substantive rights of the petitioner

that are at stake during the pendency of the appeal, an order

granting protection to the petitioner from the implementation

of the impugned order needs to be granted. He submits that if

the impugned order is not stayed the very purpose of filing the

appeal becomes infructuous and would cause grave injustice.
                           6               WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



6.    In support of his submissions regarding grant of stay

during the pendency of appeal, the learned senior advocate has

relied on following decisions :


      (i)    Shamkumar Arjun Dalvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and
      another ; 1988(1) Bom.C.R.131.

      (ii)   S. Duraimanickam Vs. D. Ilavarasi and others, in Civil
      Appeal (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
      No.13242/2025), Supreme Court.


7.    Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mane appearing for

respondent No.4 submitted that, although it is submitted by

the advocate for petitioner that no specific charges are framed

against the petitioner. The objection filed by respondent No.4

itself contains the specific charges. The objection has been filed

on the ground of failure of the petitioner, along with Gram

Sevak, to conduct the monthly Gram Sabha and mis-utilization

and misappropriation of funds of the Gram Panchayat without

permission. Funds available under 14th and 15th finance

commission have been misutilized by fabricating documents to

show that the works have been completed, despite the fact that

no such work was carried out.


8.    In view of the specific allegations made by respondent

No.4, petitioner has been called upon to file her say to the
                          7              WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



allegations made against her. The petitioner accordingly filed

her say to the complaint. Referring to paragraph No.9 of the

complaint, it is submitted that, the allegations against the

petitioner are specific. Various cheques have been issued in

favour of the petitioner and her husband without doing any

development work of the Gram Panchayat, by creating

fabricated false record, in support of the alleged works done.

He submits that although the allegations against failure to

conduct the Gram Sabha as contemplated under Section 7(1)

and 36 failed to sustain the challenge but the prayer seeking

disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(g) has

been sustained by the order of the Collector, Parbhani. The

Collector has rightly taken into consideration the spirit of

Section 14(1)(g) and has passed appropriate order holding

that the petitioner and her husband are the persons ‘interested’

as contemplated under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act.


9.    The cheques issued in favour of the petitioner and her

husband, itself are sufficient to sustain the allegations made

against the petitioner. According to him, the word ‘interest’

used in Section 14(1)(g) has been interpreted by this Court in

case of Ravindraprasad Shankarprasad Avasthi Vs. Prakash

Pralhadrao Wagh and others ; 2013 LJSoft (Bom) 1676.
                           8               WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



10.   When faced with an identical situation of interpretation

under Section 14(1)(g) regarding the disqualification of a

Sarpanch, this Court interpreted what constitutes 'interest'. He

submits that this Court has held that disqualification and

membership of panchayat for having direct or indirect

monetary or pecuniary interest in panchayat works, such

clauses of disqualification should not receive unduly narrow or

restricted construction and it is required to be given a liberal

interpretation.


11.   According to him, ‘interest’ means concern, advantage,

share, portion, or participation. Reliance is placed on the

observations where this Court has held that, a person

interested is the one having an interest in right of property, or

in the nature of property, less than title. In the present context,

the word ‘interest’ would mean the interest, for the petitioner’s

own benefit and also the benefit of relatives. He submits that

it is sufficiently proved by the complainant that, the petitioner

and her husband are the persons ‘interested’ in the works of

the Gram Panchayat and they have directly or indirectly

secured interest in the work done by the Panchayat.              It is

submitted that since the charges under Section 14(1)(g) itself

have been proved before the Collector, Parbhani, the petitioner
                          9                  WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



is not entitled to continue in the Office, as she has lost

confidence of the people who have elected her.


12.     I have heard the respective parties and I have gone

through the orders impugned. The objection has been filed by

respondent No.4 on two grounds. Firstly, about failure to

conduct the meetings under Section 7(1) and 36 of the

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. The challenge on the

ground of failure to conduct the meetings and Gram Sabha

could    not   sustain.   However,     the      objection      seeking

disqualification on the ground as provided in Section 14(1)(g)

of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act has been allowed by

the Collector with reference to Section 14(1)(g). It is held by

the Collector that the four amounts of Rs.1,81,000/-,

Rs.10,000/-,   Rs.58,000/-    and    Rs.2,00,000/-        have     been

disbursed in favour of husband of the petitioner as well as the

petitioner, those amounts been disbursed by the Gram

Panchayat towards the expenses of the works carried out by

the Gram Panchayat. All these amounts have been received

directly through cheque. In view of the consistent issuance of

cheque in favour of the petitioner and her husband, the

Collector has arrived at conclusion that there is a continuous

breach of Section 14(1)(g). This observation has been made by
                            10              WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



the Collector without conducting any inquiry but merely on the

basis of the data such as the cash book and other documents

available during the hearing. The explanation tendered by the

petitioner has not been considered and it has been out rightly

rejected. Without recording any reason about applicability of

Section 14(1)(g) of the Act, the order impugned has been

passed.     Section 14(1)(g) is reproduced hereinunder, which

reads thus :

      “14. (1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat, or
      continue as such, who—
      (a)    …..
      (b)    …..
      (c)    …..
      (d)    …..
      (e)    …..
      (f)    …..
      (g) has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any
      share or interest in any work done by order of the panchayat,
      or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment
      with or under, the panchayat.”


13.    Upon careful reading of Section 14(1)(g), it is evident

that the Collector is required to arrive at a conclusion that by

some work order issued by Gram Panchayat, a work is done in

which the Sarpanch is directly or indirectly involved, as a

partner or he holds any share or interest in such work done by

the Panchayat.     In the present case, the allegations of the
                           11             WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



petitioner is about misappropriation of the funds by the

petitioner who has obtained cheques in her name as well as in

favour of her husband for the works done, which according to

respondent No.4 is not at all done and records have been

fabricated to show that such works have been executed. In

support of these allegations, there is nothing placed on record

indicative of the fact that the cheques issued in favour of the

petitioner are in fact issued for the works which are not at all

done. No inquiry has been conducted for verifying the

allegations of misappropriation. The allegations basically are

about misappropriation of funds of Gram Panchayat which

prima facie would not fall within the purview of Section 14(1)

(g) of the Act. In the wake of the aforementioned

circumstances,     the     Divisional    Commissioner,          Chh.

Sambhajinagar ought to have granted ‘stay’ during the

pendency of the substantive appeal before him. The petitioner

is pursuing a statutory remedy of Appeals, the failure to grant

stay, during the Appeal would result in taking over the charge

of Sarpanch from the petitioner and would end up frustrating

the very object of filing appeal. The petitioner has relied on the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.

Duraimanickam (supra), wherein it was held that the first

appeal is a remedy where the court can deal with both
                          12              WP13061-26 (Final Order).odt



questions of fact and law, therefore, if the interim protection

granted is vacated, the purpose of appeal itself would get

frustrated. Stay of the impugned order pending consideration

of the appeal is the only appropriate course; otherwise the

remedy of appeal would be rendered nugatory. In view of the

pending substantive Appeal filed by the petitioner without

going into the merits of the matter and interpretation of

Section 14(1)(g), it would be appropriate to grant ‘stay’ to the

order dated 11.08.2026, passed by the Collector, Parbhani

during the pendency of the Appeal filed before the Additional

Divisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar.         At the same

time, the Additional Divisional Commissioner is requested to

decide the pending appeal on its own merits by granting

opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, preferably

within a period of three (3) months from the date of the order

passed by this Court and during the pendency of this Appeal,

the     order   passed   by    the    Collector,    Parbhani       in

2025/Sa.Pra./Grapni-2/ Pra.Kra./11 shall remain stayed.


14.     With the aforementioned direction, the Writ petition

stands disposed of.


                               (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.)
                                ...
vmk/-