Gangadhar Nilu Chavan v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 WP / 7221 / 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 951 WRIT PETITION NO.7221 OF 2022 GANGADHAR NILU CHAVAN

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mrs. M.G. Kasture h/f. Mr. Kulkarni A.M. AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle Advocate for the respondent no. 5 : Ms. Vaishali R. Kalyankar ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 13 JULY 2022 PC :

The petitioner who was the elected Sarpanch has been disqualified by the Collector in a proceeding under section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for having incurred disqualification under section 14(1)(g). He is also aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the Divisional Commissioner. 2.

I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner as also the learned AGP.

3.

The petitioner was alleged to have withdrawn certain amounts from the account of the Gram Panchayat on three occasions. He tried to explain it by putting forth the stand that two of the amounts

2 WP / 7221 / 2022 were towards his remuneration whereas the third one was spent for construction of toilets.

4.

In view of such peculiar stand being taken by the petitioner throughout, one cannot comprehend as to how he could have withdrawn such amounts from the account of the bank which can happen only with a joint signature of the Sarpanch and the Gram Sevak. Even the manner in which the amount was allegedly spent is not believable and acceptable. One cannot comprehend as to how the Sarpanch could have withdrawn the amount and spent for construction of toilets which appropriation should have happened with the set norms and not by the Sarpanch individually withdrawing the amount and paying the contractors.

5.

Even the honorarium which he is entitled could not have been paid the manner in which it has been done. 6.

Apart from the above state-of-affairs, the Collector as well as the Commissioner have specifically recorded an observation that the petitioner himself had even forged the signature of the Gram Sevak on the cheques for encashing the amounts.

7.

Considering all the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, when the material before the authority was sufficient enough to indicate that the petitioner has directly or indirectly taken a share or interest in the work to be done by the panchayat or in a

3 WP / 7221 / 2022 contract for and on behalf of the panchayat, he indeed incurred disqualification under section 14(1)(g).

8.

There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed. [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE arp/