Knowledge of disqualification grounds and opportunity to explain default satisfy natural justice in Section 7 proceedings.

The Petitioner, the directly elected Sarpanch of Village Kasare (term 2022-2027), was disqualified by the District Collector, Dhule, via an order dated 23.01.2026

The disqualification followed a complaint by Respondent No. 4 alleging that the Petitioner failed to convene mandatory Gram Sabha meetings as required by law

The Petitioner contended that she was not served with a copy of the complaint, the notice did not specify the exact provision of disqualification, and the hearing via video conferencing was abruptly closed

She further argued that the Model Code of Conduct for elections prevented the meetings and that the Gram Sevak had manipulated notices

1. Whether the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend the dispute and was properly informed of the charges of proposed disqualification?

2. Whether the Petitioner incurred disqualification in terms of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, for failing to hold the mandatory meetings?

Section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, which mandates at least four Gram Sabha meetings every financial year, with no more than four months elapsing between any two meetings. Failure to hold these meetings without "sufficient cause" results in the automatic disqualification of the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch for the remainder of the term

principles of natural justice regarding the adequacy of notice and the right to be heard, weighing them against precedents such as Pratibha v. Additional Collector and Shobhabai Devidas Chavan v. State of Maharashtra

The Court found that the Petitioner was served a notice explicitly mentioning Section 7 of the Act, and her subsequent detailed reply—which referenced the Block Development Officer’s (BDO) report—proved she had sufficient knowledge of the charges

On the merits, the BDO's report and records from the Village Development Officer showed that the Petitioner was repeatedly prompted to conduct meetings between April 2024 and May 2025 but refused or deferred them indefinitely, citing the "code of conduct" as a pretext

The Court determined that the Petitioner failed to provide "sufficient cause" for missing four mandatory meetings. It reasoned that while procedural fairness is required, a Sarpanch cannot avoid statutory consequences for a clear default using technical arguments when the substance of the charge was known and undefended

The High Court upheld the District Collector’s order, holding that the Petitioner had incurred disqualification under Section 7. The Writ Petition was rejected, and the rule was discharged