Non-Performance of Statutory Duty Does Not Lead to Automatic Disqualification: Bombay High Court

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad comprising Justice Arun R Pednkar has recently set aside an order of collector disqualifying a Sarpanch on the ground of non-performance of statutory duty while observing that non-performance of statutory duty does not lead to automatic disqualification.

The high court was hearing a plea filed by a Sarpanch challenging the order of the Sarpanch disqualifying him as a member and Sarpanch of village Panchayat, Gundewadi, Taluka and District, Jalna, for not conducting at least four meetings of the Gram Sabha in the financial year.

The petitioner argued that due to COVID-19 pandemic measures under the Disaster Management Act and section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he was unable to conduct four meetings in the first half of 2021.

However, after the lifting of the prohibitory orders, they conducted meetings on September 3, 2021, November 16 and 30, 2021, and an online meeting on January 26, 2022. The Sarpanch argued that he had adhered to Section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, which requires four meetings per financial year with no more than a four-month gap between them.

On the other hand, the collector argued that the 4-month gap period between the two meetings was not followed by the Sarpanch.

The court agreed with the contentions of the Sarpanch and said that an elected member can be removed in exceptional circumstances after giving an opportunity to him to explain non-performance.

“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 sufficient cause for his failure to perform statutory duty. 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 court said.

While rejecting the contentions of the Collector, the court said,

“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 Code of Criminal Procedure, placing restrictions on holding meetings up to 15th June, 2021, the petitioner has complied with the provision of holding of Gram Sabha meetings as contemplated in the Act.”

Case Title: Manohar Dnyaneshwar Pote vs The Collector Jalna