Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
(xxv) Section 115 (1) - The action of the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch must have been "wilful" - Omission, refusal, violation or abuse must have been wilful. Held, a mere violation, omission, refusal or abuse is not enough – Omission, refusal, violation or abuse must also be wilful – The adverb "wilfully" governs and qualities the conduct of Sarpanch, namely, that wilfully omitted, refused, violated the provisions of the Act or the rules or wilfully abused the rights and privileges vested in him or wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama Panchayat or the Grama – Unless it is found that he did so wilfully, the provision would not be attracted : 1987 (II) OLR 391. (xxvi) Section 115 (1) - Suspension and removal of Sarpanch, Naib- Sarpanch and member - All the three requirements, namely (a), (b) and (c) are cumulative - If any one of the requirements is absent, the order is invalid. Held, suspension of an elected representative is indeed a drastic action and should not be taken recourse to cursorily and in a mechanical manner – Having vested the powers with the Executive to suspend an elected representative, the Legislature provided safeguards against arbi- trary exercise. All the three requirements under Section 115 (1) are cumu- lative Absence of any one of them, the suspension is invalid – The Collec- tor must form an opinion on both the counts enumerated in (b) and (c) Existence of one is not sufficient - Every delinquency or lapse might not satisfy the requirements of (c) – Therefore, while bringing the tenure of an elected representative to an end either temporarily or prematurely, utmost care and circumspection ought to be exercised – Right of an elected rep- resentative to continue in Office for the full tenure should not be lightly tinkered with by the Executive : 1986 (II) OLR 427 : 62 (1986) CLT 548.