The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the disqualification of a Sarpanch under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, hinges not on mere assertion of meeting conduct, but on demonstrable compliance with statutory notice procedures. This judgment clarifies that procedural rigor is non-negotiable in local governance, setting a binding standard for elected representatives.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rasvanta W/o. Bhujangrao Chavan, was elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Kudala, Taluka Vasmat, District Hingoli, and assumed office on 05.01.2023. On 18.07.2025, she received a notice under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (MVP Act), alleging failure to conduct mandatory monthly meetings. Based on an enquiry report by the Block Development Officer, the District Collector passed an order on 10.12.2025 disqualifying her for the remainder of her term.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was elected Sarpanch on 05.01.2023; the respondent no.3 was elected Upa-Sarpanch.
- The notice dated 18.07.2025 cited failure to conduct monthly meetings as the ground for disqualification.
- The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 25.07.2025, claiming she had conducted all meetings from January 2024 to May 2025 in accordance with Rule 3 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959.
- The petitioner’s reply, in paragraph 6, listed dates and details of each meeting allegedly held.
- The Village Panchayat produced its original notice register and meeting minutes book for judicial inspection.
- From 08.01.2024 to 11.03.2024, notices were served on members as per record.
- From 08.04.2024 to 18.09.2024, notices were shown as served only to three members, including the petitioner.
- From October 2024 to January 2025, notices were issued to only four members.
- From February 2025 onward, notices were issued to only four members.
- The combined register of notices and minutes from March 2024 to May 2025 appeared to have been prepared retrospectively.
- No panchanama or record of refusal of notice by members was produced.
- No action was taken against members who were absent for over six months, despite Rule 3(3) mandating their disqualification.
- The register falsely recorded absent members as seconders to resolutions, e.g., on 13.05.2024.
Procedural History
- 05.01.2023: Petitioner assumed office as Sarpanch.
- 18.07.2025: Disqualification notice issued under Section 36 of MVP Act.
- 10.12.2025: District Collector passed order disqualifying petitioner.
- 15.01.2026: Writ Petition No. 15056 of 2025 filed before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
- 01.07.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 15.07.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that meetings were conducted regularly; absence of members was due to their refusal to attend or accept notices. Relied on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad, Pratibha Sanjay Hulle v. Additional Collector, and Sunil Daulat Patil v. State of Maharashtra to contend that vague notices and lack of specific charges vitiate disqualification.
Respondents (2 to 7 and 11): Contended that notices were not served on the majority of members as required by Rule 4 of the Meeting Rules. No panchanama or proof of attempted service was produced. The register was manipulated. The Collector’s order was based on material evidence and lawful.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the District Collector’s order dated 10.12.2025, restoration of her position as Sarpanch, and a direction to recognize her tenure as valid.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Sarpanch can be disqualified under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for failure to conduct monthly meetings when there is no verifiable evidence of statutory notice being served on members, and when the record of meetings appears to be retrospectively fabricated.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the notice under Section 36 was vague and failed to specify the exact meetings or dates of default. He relied on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad to assert that disqualification requires specific, substantiated allegations. He further cited Pratibha Sanjay Hulle and Sunil Daulat Patil to argue that mere allegations without opportunity to rebut are violative of natural justice. He contended that the petitioner had conducted meetings and that non-attendance by members was beyond her control, and that the Meeting Rules allow for alternative service methods if members refuse notices - which were not followed.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel emphasized that Rule 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 mandates that notices be served on all members at least three clear days before the meeting. The record showed notices were issued only to a minority of members from March 2024 onward. No panchanama or proof of attempted service was produced. The Collector rightly rejected the petitioner’s unsubstantiated claims. The petitioner’s conduct amounted to deliberate non-compliance, and the order was lawful, reasonable, and based on documentary evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the notice register and meeting minutes produced by the Village Panchayat. It noted that while notices were properly served from January to March 2024, the record from April 2024 onward was inconsistent and appeared to be compiled in bulk. The register recorded attendance and resolutions even when only four members were present, including the petitioner, and falsely listed absent members as seconders.
"The Sarpanch of Village Panchayat cannot shirk her responsibility only by contending that she had convened meeting, unless such meeting complies mandate of service of notice in tune with relevant Rules."
The Court held that Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Meeting Rules are mandatory. The burden lies on the Sarpanch to prove compliance, not on the state to disprove it. The petitioner’s assertion that members refused notices was unsupported by any panchanama or record of affixing notices on residences as required under Rule 4. The absence of such documentation rendered her defense legally insufficient.
The Court distinguished Ravi Yashwant Bhoir and Pratibha Sanjay Hulle, noting that in those cases, the notices were entirely absent or lacked specificity. Here, the notice under Section 36 was specific and referenced the enquiry report. The petitioner was given a full opportunity to respond, and her reply was considered. The Collector’s findings were grounded in the documentary record, not speculation.
The Court further observed that the failure to initiate disqualification proceedings against members absent for over six months was a separate administrative lapse, but did not absolve the Sarpanch of her statutory duty to convene meetings properly.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the District Collector’s order dated 10.12.2025 disqualifying the petitioner from holding the office of Sarpanch for the remainder of her term. The petitioner’s request for continuation of interim protection was rejected. No monetary relief or reinstatement was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must advise Sarpanchs and Gram Panchayat secretaries to maintain irrefutable records of notice service: date, time, method, and proof of delivery.
- Retrospective entries in meeting registers will be treated as tampering and will invalidate proceedings.
- Mere verbal claims of attempted service are legally insufficient without panchanama or affixation records.
Absence of Members Does Not Excuse Non-Compliance
- A Sarpanch cannot claim compliance merely because members were absent.
- The law requires active steps to serve notices; passive assertion of refusal is not enough.
- If members refuse notices, the prescribed procedure under Rule 4 must be followed and documented.
Judicial Scrutiny of Local Governance Is Increasing
- Courts will now examine the authenticity of panchayat records with greater rigor.
- Disqualification orders under Section 36 will be sustained if supported by verifiable documentation.
- Political disputes cannot override statutory obligations; procedural integrity is paramount.
