Suresh Bhausaheb Alhat v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11264 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.792 OF 2017 Suresh s/o Bhausaheb Alhat, Age 29 years, Occ. Agri.

R/o Mahalgaon, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad ...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 (Copy to be served on A.G.P., High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2.

The Hon'ble Minister, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 3.

The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 4.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 5.

Smt. Sarita Janardhan Bhutte, Age major, Occ. Member of Grampanchayat, Mahalgaon, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad 6.

Sainath s/o Rangnath Aher, Age major, Occ. Member of Grampanchayat, Mahalgaon, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad 7.

Yogesh s/o Machindra Home, Age major, Occ. Member of Grampanchayat, Mahalgaon, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad 8.

Smt. Kusumbai Eknath Alhat

Age major, Occ. Member of Grampanchayat, Mahalgaon, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad 9.

Smt. Meena Rajnikant Najan, Age major, Occ. Member of Grampanchayat, Mahalgaon, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad ...

RESPONDENTS .....

Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.R. Yadav, A.G.P. for State Shri R.R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent No.6 .....

CORAM:

S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED:

20th January, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

For the reasons stated in Civil Application No.792/2017, the Civil Application is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3.

It is seen from the record of the case, which has been produced before the Court for perusal by the learned A.G.P. that all the members of the Grampanchayat who were present on 15/6/2016 in the meeting, have not been enquired with by the Extension Officer who conducted the enquiry in the matter. Some of them, of course, have been enquired with, but no

categorical conclusion about passing of the resolution in question or not has been reached in the report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Deputy Chief Executive Officer. A conclusion about passing of the resolution in question was necessary as what lay at the whole controversy was the issue relating to fabrication of documents and making a show by this petitioner of passing of a resolution for inviting tenders for temporary water supply scheme in order to fulfill the thirst of the villagers at a time when they were reeling under acute scarcity of water.

It is the contention of the petitioner that this scheme, as per the order of the Collector was to be implemented within 15 days from 13/6/2016 and the meeting of Grampanchayat was already called on 15/6/2016 and as the Sarpanch remained absent on that date, and looking at the situation, this petitioner being the Deputy Sarpanch, took up the urgent subject at the time of the meeting and a resolution was duly passed for inviting tenders for implementation of the scheme sanctioned by the Collector. It is also the contention of the petitioner that if the proceedings book has not been properly maintained by the Secretary, the petitioner could not be blamed for that.

With such rival contentions, what comes to the fore is the issue regarding passing or not passing of the concerned resolution and, therefore, proper enquiry into deciding this issue was necessary. 4.

Apart from what is stated in the previous paragraph,

I find that, having regard to the seriousness of the issue as well as mandate of Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, the enquiry ought to have been made by the Chief Executive Officer himself rather than relying upon some enquiry made by his subordinate, like the Extension Officer. This has also not been done by the Chief Executive Officer.

5.

For the reasons aforestated, I am of the view that this is a case wherein a proper enquiry is required and which enquiry having not been conducted, and that too by a competent officer, the impugned orders could not be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Divisional Commissioner for deciding it afresh. The learned Divisional Commissioner may order an enquiry into the matter and in case such an enquiry is ordered, the Chief Executive Officer shall conduct the same in terms of Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. Decision in the proceedings initiated on the complaint made against the petitioner shall be taken within two months from the date of this order.

6.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. ( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE fmp/