Judgment:
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Heard finally by consent of parties.
Advocate for petitioner points out that in order dated 3.8.2007 the Additional Collector, Amravati has found that though the meeting was not held on 30.8.2006, it was shown to have been conducted on 31.8.2006 and hence there is no disqualification as required by Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958. He points out that because of proviso to said Section 36 the order becomes final and therefore, it was not open to respondent No. 1 to entertain any revision against it under Section 155 thereof. In the alternative he also points out that the revisional authority could not have removed petitioner from post of Member of Gram Panchayat also.
2. Mrs. Deshpande, as also learned A.G.P., state that Section 36 itself expressly gives finality to finding of Additional Collector only on the aspect of sufficient cause. Both of them urged that Additional Collector in present matter has not recorded any such finding and the conclusion recorded by him that meeting was held on 31.8.2006 was quashed in Revision under Section 155. The revisional authority after verification of record has found that there was no such meeting conducted even on 31.8.2006.
3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties I find that Section 36 deals with disqualification of a Sarpanch as Sarpanch and also disables him from becoming Sarpanch for remainder of the term of Gram Panchayat. Thus Sarpanch who is found responsible for not conducting the meeting will cease to be Sarpanch and not as a member of Gram Panchayat. In present facts therefore, respondent No. 1 could not have removed petitioner from the post of Member of Gram Panchayat. Order to that effect and to that extent is therefore, unsustainable.
4. However, finality sought to be urged by Advocate Vaishnav is only of sufficient cause for not convening meeting of Gram Panchayat. In present facts it has been held that the meeting of Gram Panchayat was conducted on 31.8.2006 by Additional Collector. Thus this finding of Additional Collector that meeting was conducted on 31.8.2006 is not made final under Section 36. The said finding therefore, can be assailed in revision under Section 155. Revisional authority has found that in fact no meeting was conducted on 31.8.2006. Petitioner has not attempted to demonstrate before respondent No. 1 that there was sufficient cause for him for not conducting the meeting on 31.8.2006. This finding of fact reached by revisional authority (respondent No. 1) is not shown to be either erroneous or perverse before this Court. I therefore, find that respondent No. 1 has rightly entertained revision and has rightly found petitioner to be disqualified to continue as Sarpanch. Petition therefore, needs to be partly allowed by declaring that petitioner only cease to be Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kalashi, but she continues to be member thereof. Rule accordingly. However, in these circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.
Advocate Vaishnav states that present order be stayed for a period of 2 weeks. In these circumstances, present order is stayed till 20.10.2008 and interim order shall cease to be operate automatically thereafter.