MANGALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally as this Court has issued notice for final disposal.

(2.) Shri Pudke learned Counsel contends that Petitioner Sarpanch issued notice on 6th December 2009 and convened monthly meeting on 14th December 2009 and in default of quorum on 15th December 2009. The Petitioner remained present on 14th December, 2009 and as there was no quorum the meeting was adjourned to 15th December 2009. She did not and could not attend the adjourned meeting. Only because of this, she has been disqualified under Section 36 of Bombay Village Panchayats Act. According to learned Counsel Section 36 does not envisage disqualification on account of absence at such meeting.

(3.) Shri Dhage learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6 and the learned A.G.P. Shri Fulzele for Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 support the order. They contend that merely issuing notice is not convening but the meeting must be convened by remaining present in the house. On 15th December 2009 Petitioner was absent and the Competent Authority has found that such absence was not for any just or sufficient reason. They point out that statutorily satisfaction of Competent Authority on the question whether or not, there was sufficient cause for such absence is made final.