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 F INAL 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 2026:BHC-AUG:45577 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the petitioner has misappropriated funds of the 14th and 15th finance commission by creating forged documents and has withdrawn the funds of Gram Panchayat by issuing cheque in her own favour and her husband.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/-