Suvarna Vishal Desale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:17621
wp-1619-2026.odt

(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1619 OF 2026
Suvarna Vishal Desale
Age : 41 years, Occupation : Sarpanch,
R/o. Kasare, Taluka Sakri,
District Dhule ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Dhule,
District Dhule.
3. Deputy Collector (Administration), Dhule
District Dhule.
4. Smt. Madhuri Vijay Khairnar,
R/o. Kasare, Taluka Sakri,
District Dhule. ..Respondents

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1925 OF 2026
1. Ulkesh s/o. Uttamrao Desale,
Age: 48 Years, Occ.: Agril,
R/o. At Post. Kasare, Tq. Sakri,
Dist. Dhule.
2. Devidas s/o. Vishnu Desale,
Age: 60 Years, Occ.: Agril,
R/o. At Post. Kasare, Tq. Sakri,
Dist. Dhule. ..Applicants
Versus
1. Smt. Suvarna Vishal Desale,
Age: 41 Years, Occ.: Household,
R/o. At Post. Kasare, Tq. Sakri,
Dist. Dhule.

wp-1619-2026.odt

(2)
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. The Collector, Dhule,
Dist. Dhule.
4. The Deputy Collector (Administration),
Dhule, Dist. Dhule.
5. Smt. Madhuri Vijay Khairnar,
Age: Major, Occu.: Household,
R/o. At Post. Kasare, Tq. Sakri,
Dist. Dhule. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Sr. Counsel i/b Mr.
G.N. Tirthkar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.D. Ghayal
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Mukul Kulkarni
Advocate for Applicant/Intervenor : Mr. A.A. Khande
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 30, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 20, 2026
JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of parties.
2. Present petition takes exception to order dated
23.01.2026 passed by District Collector, Dhule/respondent no.2
whereby petitioner is disqualified to hold post of Sarpanch in terms of
Section 7 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat, 1959. The petitioner was
directly elected as Sarpanch of Village Kasare Taluka. Sakri District

wp-1619-2026.odt

(3)
Dhule in general elections for term 2022 to 2027. The respondent
no.4 made a complaint dated 30.06.2025 to District Collector alleging
that petitioner failed to convene mandatory Gram Sabha meetings,
hence, incurred disqualification. On 25.09.2025, petitioner was
served with notice of disqualification proceeding in Application No.24
of 2025. The petitioner was called upon to remain present on
17.05.2025 before District Collector. On that day, she personally
appeared. On next date of hearing, she appeared through an
advocate. The Collector called a report from Block Development
Officer as regards to allegations in complaint. On 16.09.2025, the
District Collector passed order of disqualification relying upon report
of Block Development Officer.
3. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned senior advocate appearing for
petitioner submits that petitioner was not served with copy of
complaint or annexures thereto. The notice of dispute application
served upon petitioner does not disclose whether proceedings were
under Section 7, Section 14 or any other disqualification provision
nor it specify about default pertaining to non-holding of Gram Sabha
meetings. The petitioner submitted her detailed reply to dispute
application and categorically denied all allegations made in complaint
thereby reserving her right to file detailed reply. Lastly, hearing was
conducted through video conferencing. The petitioner’s advocate
joined proceedings through video conferencing as directed by

wp-1619-2026.odt

(4)
Collector, however, he was not permitted to complete his submission
and abruptly hearing was closed. As such, petitioner was not given
sufficient opportunity of hearing. The impugned order is in gross
violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
4. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned senior advocate would
further submit that the District Collector did not consider that during
March-2024 to June-2024 and again between October-2024 to
November-2024, the model code of conduct for parliamentary and
assembly elections was enforced. During this period, Gram Sevak
expressly advised not to convene Gram Sabha meeting and prepared a
bogus manipulated notice dated 05.04.2024 and 04.11.2024 to show
that he had instructed petitioner to conduct such meeting. In support
of his contention, Mr. Katneshwarkar relies upon law laid down by
this Court in following judgments :
1. Pratibha w/o Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector,
Latur and Others reported in 2010 (5) Mh.L.J. 47.
2. Baburao Vishwanath Mathpati Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in 1996 (1) Mh.L.J. 366.
3. Bhagat Ram Patanga Vs. The State of Punjab
reported in (1972) SCC 170.
4. Shri Manohar Dnyaneshwar Pote Vs. The Collector,
Jalna and Others in Writ Petition No.9427 of 2022 decided
on 24.02.2023.
5. Vilas Sanjay Pawar Vs. Pandharinath Tukaram
Kotsulwar reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 316.

wp-1619-2026.odt

(5)
6. Shubhangi Anil Gawande and Another Vs. Additional
Collector, Amravati and Others reported in 2010 (2)
Mh.L.J. 368.
7. Gangabai Vithal Bade Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others reported in 2013 (2) Mh.L.J. 469.
5. Per contra, Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned advocate
appearing for respondent no.4, Mr. A.A. Khande, learned advocate
appearing for applicant/intervenor and Mr. S.D. Ghayal, learned AGP
appearing for respondent/State supports impugned order. Mr. Mukul
Kulkarni relies upon observations of this Court in case of Shobhabai
Devidas Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition
No.4807/2020 decided on 02.12.2021 and Pralhad Bhikaji Barkade
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2016) 6 All MR 721.
6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
advocates appearing for respective parties, two important points are
posed for consideration of this Court. (i) Firstly, whether petitioner
was given sufficient opportunity to defend complaint/dispute thereby
serving/informing charges of proposed disqualification ? (ii)
Secondly, whether petitioner has incurred disqualification in terms of
Section 7 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ? So far as first
issue is concerned, undisputedly, petitioner was served with notice of
disqualification initiated at the behest of respondent no.4. The copy
of notice is placed on record of this Court at Exhibit-C. The notice is
dated 25.09.2025. The subject is quoted to be Section 7 of

wp-1619-2026.odt

(6)
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The petitioner was called
upon to remain present on 07.10.2025 for hearing before District
Collector. It appears that petitioner had personally appeared before
Collector. On 04.11.2025, she submitted her reply stipulating that she
had not received copy of complaint, however, from para 6 onwards,
she took a defence that she was not permitted to participate in inquiry
conducted by Block Development Officer or Chief Executive Officer.
In para 8, she stipulates that there is no evidence to indicate that she
failed to conduct meetings of Gram Sabha without good reasons. She
denied her own statement recorded before Block Development Officer
and objected contents of report. After typewritten portion in reply,
handwritten portion is added stating that she has conducted Gram
Sabha as contemplated under law.
7. The roznama of proceeding before District Collector
depicts that on 07.10.2025, both parties were present before
Collector. The respondent no.4 filed his written submissions whereas
petitioner had sought time for the same. On 14.10.2025, matter was
adjourned as District Collector was busy and posted on 04.11.2025.
On that day, hearing was conducted on video conferencing. Perusal of
impugned order depicts that petitioner’s defence that she conducted
meetings as contemplated under Act has been considered and rejected
on the basis of report submitted by Block Development Officer as well
as record submitted by Village Development Officer, which shows that

wp-1619-2026.odt

(7)
petitioner was intimated by Village Development Officer about her
st st
obligation to conduct Gram Sabha during 1 April, 2024 to 31 May,
2024. However, she put remark that Gram Sabha can be conducted
on expiry of code of conduct of parliamentary elections. Similar
communication is given in respect of Gram Sabha to be conducted in
November-2024, January-2024 and April-May 2025. At both
occasions, petitioner did not respond to Village Development Officer
and advised him to fix date only after she tells him.
8. Section 7 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959
prescribes for meetings of Gram Sabha and disqualification to
continue as Sarpanch if Gram Sabha is not conducted without
sufficient cause. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 along with second
proviso is produced herewith for ready reference :
“(1) There shall be held at least [four meetings] of the Gram
sabha [every financial year] on such date, at such [time and
place, and in such manner] as may be prescribed [and if the
Sarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch fails without
sufficient cause, to [hold [any of such four meetings he shall be
disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may be,
Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of
the term of office of the members [of the panchayat; and the
Secretary of the panchayat shall also if, prima facie, found
responsible of any lapse in convening such meeting, be liable to
be suspended, and for being proceeded against, for such other
disciplinary action as provided under the relevant rules.] The
decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there
was such sufficient cause shall be final]:

wp-1619-2026.odt

(8)
[Provided further that, a period of not more than [four months]
shall be allowed to elapse between the two meetings of the Gram
Sabha:”
9. The careful consideration of record depicts that petitioner
failed to conduct four Gram Sabha in terms of Section 7(1) of
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. During 2024 to 2025 (April-May
2024, November 2024, January 2025 and May 2025). The record
further indicates that petitioner was served with notice of
disqualification proceeding under Section 7 of Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act, 1959. As such, she cannot say that she was not aware
about disqualification alleged against her. Further, she filed a reply
before District Collector wherein she complained that she was not
served with complaint or report of Block Development Officer.
Pertinently, she refers to contents of report of Block Development
Officer. The report of Block Development Officer shows that
petitioner’s statement was recorded during course of inquiry and
ultimately, there is no explanation even before this Court for non-
conduct of mandatory Gram Sabha.
10. At this stage, although Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned senior
advocate appearing for petitioner heavily relied upon observations of
this Court in case of Sunil Daulat Patil (supra) and Pratibha Sanjay
Hulle (supra), this Court finds that once petitioner was aware about
disqualification proceeding initiated against her in terms of Section 7
of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act and, in pursuance to service of

wp-1619-2026.odt

(9)
notice, she caused her appearance and tendered her reply and after
engaging an advocate participated in final hearing but failed to
provide explanation for non-conduct of four Gram Sabha during the
year 2024-2025, she cannot succeed to avoid disqualification arising
out of her failure.
11. The record indicates that when Collector solicited report
from Block Development Officer, statement of petitioner was recorded
where she could not provide sufficient reasons explaining failure to
conduct four Gram Sabha. It is trite that Section 7 of Maharashtra
Village Panchayat Act aims to bring participation of villagers in
working of Gram Sabha. The democratic principles are sought to be
inculcate in functioning of Gram Sabha. The Sarpanch or in his
absence Upa-sarpanch, so also Village Development Officer are
mandated to conduct four Gram Sabha within a financial year
without gap of more than four months in two consecutive meetings.
The failure to observe mandate of Section 7 would brings penalty of
disqualification against Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch, as the case may
be.
12. In this backdrop, although it is expected that Sarpanch
and Upa-sarpanch is served with imputations/charges in
disqualification proceeding, once it is brought on record that charges
or default was within knowledge of Sarpanch and sufficient
opportunity was provided to him/her to explain default, there is no

wp-1619-2026.odt

(10)
reason to give leverage in favour of defaulter Sarpanch or Upa-
sarpanch to avoid statutory consequences for technical reasons. In
this backdrop, disqualification order passed by District Collector needs
no interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court.
13. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
14. Rule is discharged.
15. Civil Application No.1925 of 2026 stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//