Mere non-performance of statutory duties will not automatically disqualify Sarpanch: Bombay High Court

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that merely because a sarpanch of a village has not performed his statutory duties, he cannot be disqualified from the post [Manohar Dnyaneshwar Pote vs The Collector, Jalna]..Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar granted a relief to one Manohar Dnyaneshwar Pote, who was disqualified by the Collector by an order passed on September 8, 2022 on the ground that he failed to conduct four meetings in a financial year as mandated under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958."Mere non-performance of the statutory duty would not disqualify the elected member unless he is not able to give a good reason for non-performing of the statutory duty. Thus, non-performance of statutory duty does not lead to automatic disqualification," the judge said. Justice Pednekar, further said that an elected member is to be removed in exceptional circumstances and that he has to be explained the specific charge against him and also the elected member should be given an opportunity to explain the sufficient cause for his failure to perform statutory duty. .As per Pote, he could not hold four meetings in the first half of 2021 owing to the prohibitory orders issued under the Disaster Management Act and section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) due to the prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic.He pointed out that soon after the prohibitory orders were lifted, he held meetings in September 3, 2021, November 16 and 30, 2021 and an online meeting on January 26, 2022. He, therefore, argued that he has conformed with Section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, which mandates holding four meetings in a financial year and that the gap between two such meetings should not be of more than four months.The Collector, however, disqualified Pote on the ground that he held meetings consecutively and did not followed the four months gap part in the provision..The Court, however, disagreed with the Collector's reasoning. "The Act does not contemplate holding of meetings in a particular way. The requirement of law is that in the financial year there has to be at least four meetings of the Gram Sabha and that gap in between meetings should not be more than 4 months. Even otherwise excluding period of covid-19 whereby the State had directed not to hold the meetings of Gram Sabha and that the various prohibitory orders are passed under Section 144 of CrPC, placing restrictions on holding meetings up to June 15, 2021, the petitioner has complied with the provision of holding of Gram Sabha meetings as contemplated in the Act," the bench opined. Therefore, the bench quashed the orders of the Collector and restored Pote's position in the Gram Sabha. .Advocates Aniruddha A Nimbalkar appeared for the petitioner.Additional Government Pleader GO Wattamwar represented the State.Advocates DP Munde and SG Kawade appeared for the Gram Panchayat and its Member. .[Read Order]