IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 910 WRIT PETITION NO. 2972 OF 2024 KANTA VISHNU BUDHWANT AND OTHERS VERSUS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS Mr. N. R. Pawade, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent/State Mr. S. K. Chavan, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 21st MARCH, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Collector dated 06/02/2024, whereby the complaint/application filed by the petitioners invoking the provisions of Section 7 and 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short ‘the Act’) came to be dismissed. 2. It is often seen that the provisions of the Act are misused by the disgruntled persons in order to settle their political score and present case is one of the such examples. Petitioners 4 in number are members of Gram Panchayat. There are total 7 members in the Gram Panchayat. Apparently petitioners are political opponents of the respondent No.4 Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Three of them had lodged complaint to the Collector alleging that no gramsabha and monthly meetings were held by 910.wp2972.24.odt 1 of 4 2025:BHC-AUG:8862 Sarpanch for a period of eight months. This complaint dated 10/08/2022 is signed by Petitioner No.1 Kanta, Petitioner No.2 Suman and Petitioner No.3 Gokarna. Petitioner No.4 is the Deputy Sarpanch who has joined the vagon subsequently by becoming petitioner herein. 3. After the complaint was received a direction was issued to the Extension Officer to submit report. He submitted report dated 29/05/2023 after perusal of the record of the Gram Panchayat. In the report it is stated that the monthly meetings were conducted after they were adjourned as per the remark. Similarly, there is mention about the conducting six gram sabha during the relevant period. The Collector accepted the explanation provided by respondent No.4 for not conducting the meeting of gramsabha dated 31/01/2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report of Extension Officer indicates about none of the monthly meeting being conducted and all the meetings were adjourned for want of corum. It is his further submission that admittedly no meeting of gramsabha was held on 31/01/2022 and the explanation provided by respondent No.4 is not satisfactorily and ought not to have been accepted by the Collector. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 supported the impugned order by contending that the non conducting of monthly 910.wp2972.24.odt 2 of 4 meetings and gramsabha by itself will not become a ground for disqualification and it is open for the Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch as the case may be to give satisfactorily explanation for non conduct of the same. It is his submission that the explanation provided by respondent No.4 for non conducting the meeting of January, 2022 is satisfactorily and that in this petition the said finding recorded by the Collector cannot be disturbed. 6. The provisions of Section 7 and 36 of the Act are enacted with noble intention that the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch as the case may be shall convey monthly meeting so also the meetings of gramsabha which is in the interest of citizens. These provisions however cannot be permitted to be abused to settle their political scores. Herein this case the record indicates that the petitioners who are political opponents to the respondent No.4 have even audacity of refusing the notices issued by the Gram Sevak for monthly meeting. Now therefore it does not lie in the mouth of these petitioners that the meetings were not conducted. It is pertinent to note that there are only seven members in the Gram Panchayat out of which three persons have refused to participate in the meeting. Apart from this perusal of the report indicates that the meetings were conducted after they were adjourned. It is no contrary material placed on record to consider the said remark 910.wp2972.24.odt 3 of 4 otherwise. 7. In so far as the meeting of gramsabha dated 31/01/2022 is concerned, admittedly conditions were imposed for the presence of the people at public places. The explanation provided by respondent No.4 for not conducting the said gramsabha is about there being no second vaccination dose being administered to the people in the said village at the relevant time. It was also found that for want of the non covid certificate, the meeting could not be held. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient reason for not conducting the meeting on 31/01/2022. The reasons recorded by the Collector for rejecting the condition of the petitioners is in consonance with the material on record. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not inclined to cause interference therein. Hence, petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 910.wp2972.24.odt 4 of 4