MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

          [2024] 9 S.C.R. 770 : 2024 INSC 762

              Manisha Ravindra Panpatil
                           v.
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
               (Civil Appeal No. 10913 of 2024)
                      27 September 2024
          [Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Appellant-Sarpanch was removed from office on the allegations
of encroachment of government land by her. Whether the
disqualification of the appellant was justified.

                           Headnotes†
Women representatives in elected bodies – Prejudicial
treatment at all levels of administrative functioning,
deprecated – Allegations made by the private respondents as
regards encroachment of government land by the appellant, a
female Sarpanch – Mechanical orders passed by authorities,
appellant removed from office – Removal affirmed by High
Court – Justification:
Held: There is no credible and convincing material on record to
substantiate the allegations of encroachment of government land
by the appellant before or post her election as Sarpanch – Nature
of allegations and the consequential removal from the office of
Sarpanch, highly disproportionate – Matter of removal of an elected
public representative should not be treated so lightly, especially
when it concerns women belonging to rural areas – Impugned
order set aside – Appellant to continue and perform the duties of
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat till the completion of her tenure.
[Paras 10-12]

                        List of Keywords
Sarpanch; Women representatives; Female Sarpanch;
Disqualification; Removal from office; Private respondents; No
professional misconduct; Encroachment of government land;
Punishment disproportionate; Mechanical/summary orders; Women
empowerment.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                       771

     Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10913 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in WP No. 4577 of 2023

                        Appearances for Parties
     Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv., Vatsalya Vigya, Ms. Gautami
     Yadav, Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Ms. Sapna Sinha, Akshay
     Sinha, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth
     Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav
     Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Advs.
     for the Respondents.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order

1.   Leave granted.
2.   Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3.   The appellant is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Vichkheda
     situated in Jalgaon District of Maharashtra. She contested in
     the panchayat elections and won in February, 2021. A dispute
     subsequently arose between the appellant and respondent nos. 5
     to 7 (hereinafter referred as ‘the private respondents’), who sought
     her disqualification on the ground that she was allegedly residing
     with her mother-in-law in a house erected upon government land.
     The appellant however, had vehemently contended that she does not
     reside in that particular dwelling, and that she lives separately with
     her husband and children in a rented accommodation. She further
     contended that the concerned dwelling was in such a dilapidated
     condition that it could not be inhabited.
4.   However, without appropriately verifying these factual issues and
     on the basis of bald statements, the concerned Collector passed
     an order disqualifying the appellant from continuing as Sarpanch.
     This order was thereafter confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner.
     Subsequently, the High Court vide the impugned order, dismissed
772                                                           [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the appellant’s writ petition against the Commissioner’s order on a
       technical ground, thus putting a seal of approval on her removal
       from office.
5.     This seems to us a classic case where the residents of the village
       could not reconcile with the fact that the appellant, being a woman,
       was nevertheless elected to the office of the Sarpanch of their village.
       They were perhaps further unable to come to terms with the reality
       that a female Sarpanch would make decisions on their behalf de
       jure and that they would have to abide by her directions.
6.     It is patently obvious that these were the primary motivations which
       led the private respondents to initiate their orchestrated efforts
       towards the removal of the appellant, from her duly elected position.
       Having found no instance of professional misconduct on the part of
       the appellant that they could etch away at, the private respondents
       instead embarked on a mission to cast aspersions upon the appellant,
       by any means necessary. This initiative was undertaken by them,
       with the intention of securing her removal from public office.
7.     Though the private respondents grasped at straws in their bid to evict
       the appellant from her position, their cause was perhaps aided by the
       mechanical and summary orders passed by government authorities,
       at various levels. These orders were passed in a lackadaisical
       manner, without making any effort towards conducting a fact-finding
       exercise, so as to confirm whether the allegations levied by the
       private respondents were sufficiently made out. There is nothing on
       record to suggest that any objection of the appellant’s family having
       encroached upon government land was ever raised when she filed
       her nomination papers.
8.     At this juncture, we would like to note that the vagaries of the present
       factual matrix is far from unique and is unfortunately somewhat
       of a norm. While there is no doubt in our mind that the private
       respondents may have operated in a discriminatory manner, what
       is more worrying is the casual approach adopted by government
       authorities in summarily removing an elected representative. This
       is all the more concerning when the representative in question is
       a woman and elected in the reservation quota, thereby indicating
       a systemic pattern of prejudicial treatment, permeating through all
       levels of administrative functioning.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                        773

     Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


9.   This scenario gets further exacerbated when we as a country are
     attempting realize the progressive goal of gender parity and women
     empowerment across all spheres, including public offices and most
     importantly adequate women representative in the elected bodies,
     such instances at the grass-root level cast a heavy shadow on any
     headway that we may have achieved.
10. That being said and having regard to the facts and circumstances
    of the case at hand, we see no credible and convincing material
    on record to substantiate the private respondents’ allegations of
    encroachment of government land by the appellant before or post
    her election as Sarpanch. All that we would like to reiterate is that
    the matter of removal of an elected public representative should not
    be treated so lightly, especially when it concerns women belonging to
    rural areas. It must be acknowledged that these women who succeed
    in occupying such public offices, do so only after significant struggle.
11. In this vein, the concerned authorities need to sensitize themselves
    and work towards creating a more congenial atmosphere where
    women, such as the appellant, can prove their worth by rendering
    their services as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.
12. In our considered view, the nature of allegations and the consequential
    punishment awarded to the appellant, namely, her removal from the
    office of Sarpanch, is highly disproportionate.
13. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
    order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the High Court is set aside. The
    appellant, in whose favour stay had already been granted, shall be
    allowed to continue and perform the duties of Sarpanch of the Gram
    Panchayat till the completion of her tenure.
14. Ordered accordingly.

     Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey