VANITABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. G.R. Ingole Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that on perusal of record, it would reveal that the meetings of Gramsabha, as required under the statute, were held. He further submits that since Gramsevak of the Village Panchayat was not cooperating with the petitioner, record prepared by him would show that some of the meetings were not held.

(2.) Mr. Chitlange, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 / caveator, submits that the entire record prepared by the Sarpanch is sham and bogus. He submits that the meetings in fact had been held and that the fabricated record has been created by the petitioner so as to indicate that the meetings were held.

(3.) However, from the perusal of the order passed by the Collector, it would reveal that the Collector himself has come to the conclusion upon perusal of the record, that in 11 months, 5 Gramsabha and 9 monthly meetings were held. The proceedings of disqualification are quasi criminal in nature. It can thus be seen that unless it is found beyond reasonable doubt, that the petitioner has incurred disqualification, it would be in the interest of justice to unseat a person who has been duly elected by a democratic machinery. A person cannot be ousted from office only on the basis of conjunctures and surmises.