The Bombay High Court has clarified that any inquiry against a directly elected Sarpanch under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, must be preceded by explicit sanction from the competent authority. The Court set aside an order permitting such an inquiry, holding it to be in direct contravention of the statutory framework and binding precedent.
The Verdict
The petitioner, a Sarpanch, succeeded in obtaining interim relief against the initiation of an inquiry into her conduct. The High Court held that the Additional Commissioner lacked authority to permit such an inquiry without prior sanction as mandated by Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Court directed that no inquiry be conducted during the pendency of the writ petition and issued notice to the respondents, affirming that the statutory procedure for initiating inquiries against elected heads of village panchayats is mandatory and non-negotiable.
Background & Facts
The petitioner is the directly elected Sarpanch of Village Malegaon Bazar in Akola district. On 20 November 2025, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, issued an order permitting the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Akola, to initiate an inquiry against the petitioner under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The order was issued without any prior application or formal sanction from the designated authority under the Act.
The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition, arguing that the procedure adopted was illegal and contrary to the statutory scheme. She relied on a prior judgment of the same High Court in Shri Jagdish Mannalalji Sancheriya vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023), which had unequivocally held that Section 39(1) requires prior sanction before any inquiry can be launched against a Sarpanch.
The procedural history shows that the inquiry was initiated administratively, without any formal complaint being processed through the prescribed channels. The petitioner sought a stay on the inquiry and a declaration that the order permitting it was void ab initio.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, had the legal authority to permit an inquiry against a Sarpanch under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, without prior sanction from the competent authority as required by the statute.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 39(1) creates a mandatory pre-condition: no inquiry can be initiated against a Sarpanch unless the competent authority first grants sanction. He cited the 2023 judgment in Sancheriya’s case, which held that the provision is procedural and substantive in nature, designed to protect elected representatives from arbitrary harassment. He emphasized that the Additional Commissioner is not the competent authority under the Act and that permitting an inquiry without sanction renders the entire process void.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Pleader conceded that the order permitting the inquiry was issued without formal sanction but argued that the inquiry was initiated in public interest and that technical non-compliance should not bar investigation into alleged misconduct. However, no statutory provision or precedent was cited to justify bypassing the sanction requirement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 39(1), which states that no inquiry shall be commenced against a Sarpanch "unless the competent authority has granted sanction for such inquiry." The Court noted that the provision is unambiguous and leaves no room for discretionary interpretation. The phrase "unless" establishes a condition precedent, not a mere procedural formality.
"The statutory mandate under Section 39(1) is not a procedural formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary action. The legislature intended that elected heads of panchayats be protected from politically motivated or frivolous inquiries, and this protection is rendered meaningless if any officer can bypass the sanction requirement."
The Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in Sancheriya’s case, distinguishing it from cases involving non-elected officials or general administrative investigations. It held that the Additional Commissioner, despite being a senior administrative officer, is not designated as the "competent authority" under the Act. Only the State Government or a person specifically empowered by notification can grant such sanction.
The Court further observed that allowing such inquiries without sanction would undermine the democratic mandate of elected Sarpanches and open the door to abuse of power by administrative machinery. The absence of any formal complaint or inquiry report prior to the order further reinforced the conclusion that the process was initiated in violation of the Act.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a binding precedent for all district-level authorities in Maharashtra. Any attempt to initiate an inquiry against a Sarpanch without prior sanction under Section 39(1) will be void and subject to immediate judicial intervention. Practitioners representing elected panchayat officials must now insist on proof of sanction before any inquiry proceeds. Conversely, authorities seeking to initiate such inquiries must ensure that the sanction is obtained from the correct authority - typically the State Government or a notified officer - and that the request is supported by prima facie material.
The ruling also reinforces the principle that statutory safeguards for elected local representatives are not mere formalities but constitutional imperatives under Article 243G and the spirit of local self-governance. Future petitions challenging unauthorized inquiries will benefit from this clear directive. However, the judgment does not extend to inquiries against Panchayat members who are not Sarpanches, nor does it bar disciplinary proceedings initiated under other provisions of the Act.
