Bombay High Court
Smt. Vandana Vasantrao Raut vs The Honourable State Minister, Rural ... on 6 January, 2017
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 jg.wp3647.15.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3647 OF 2015
Smt. Vandana Vasantrao Raut
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bokhara
Tah and Dist : Nagpur. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
(1) The Hon'ble State Minister,
Rural Development,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
(2) The Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division Nagpur.
(3) The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
(4) Shri. Amol Bhayyaji Umate
member of Gram Panchayat Bokhara
Tah and Dist : Nagpur.
(5) Ranjitsingh Vasantsingh Chouhan,
Upa-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Bokhara Tah and Dist : Nagpur. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Virendra G. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Amit M. Balpande, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
None for the respondent no. 3
Shri Anup D. Dangore, Advocate for the respondent no. 4
Shri Reynold T. Anthony, Advocate for the respondent no. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : 06/01/2017
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 :::
2 jg.wp3647.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Shri Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister of State for Rural Development dated 15-6-2015 thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follow.
The respondent no. 4 submitted an application before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. It was submitted in the application that the petitioner who was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bokhara by exercising the powers issued resident certificates to two persons when those two person were already dead. The enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry conducted by the Extension Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, it was opined that the Computer Operator of the Village Panchayat one Shri Ravindra Naik submitted an application signed by himself under the pressure of Upa-
Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Bokhara Shri Ranjitsingh Chouhan. It was stated by the Computer Operator Shri Ravindra Naik that under the ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 ::: 3 jg.wp3647.15.odt pressure, he prepared false certificate and handed over the certificates to Shri Ranjitsingh Chouhan. It was further stated in the enquiry report that the petitioner in her statement submitted that the alleged certificate is not signed by her but somebody by playing mischief made fabricated signatures, as such, she is not responsible for issuance of the said certificates. The statements recorded before the Chief Executive Officer are also placed on record. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur in his enquiry report found that the petitioner without verifying the record issued resident certificates in the name of two persons who were already dead. The Chief Executive Officer accordingly gave his opinion in favour of disqualification of the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur by order dated 7-7-2014 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no. 4 seeking disqualification. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister in his detail order on hearing the parties concerned and on perusal of the record could not find any favour with the petitioner, resultantly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
4. Shri Dhage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted, firstly, that the order passed by the Additional ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 ::: 4 jg.wp3647.15.odt Commissioner itself was unsustainable. It was the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur without recording any reasons, only by referring to the submissions, passed the order and thereby allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the Hon'ble Minister also failed to consider the necessary documents and record placed before the Hon'ble Minister, namely, the enquiry report.
Shri Dhage, learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner under bonafide impression that the Computer Operator has verified the record and submitted the certificate for endorsement before her, signed the resident certificates. Thus it was the submission of the learned counsel that the act of the petitioner was a bonafide act, as such, no action ought to have been initiated against the petitioner. Shri Dhage, learned counsel then relying on the Government Circular dated 1-11-2013 submitted that the power to issue the resident certificate vest with the Computer Operator. He further submitted that the petitioner was only to endorse the certificate and it is the responsibility of the Computer Operator to verify the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the Hon'ble Minister while dismissing the appeal failed to appreciate that it was the foul play of the Upa-Sarpanch i.e. respondent no. 5 who had hatched the conspiracy in connivance with the Computer ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 ::: 5 jg.wp3647.15.odt Operator and the petitioner was made scapegoat. It was the other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged resident certificate was not sought for from either the relative of Shri Ramkrushana Ukandrao Dakhode or Shri Dhanraj Maoti Mende.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as neither the family member of these two persons nor any legal representative of these two persons approached the Panchayat for seeking the resident certificate nor they lodged any complaint in respect of issuance of resident certificate, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the acts done with the malafide intention at the instance of the respondent no. 5.
5. Shri Balpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Dangore, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Shri Anthony, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 support the order impugned in the petition.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently made an attempt to submit before this Court that the mischief was played by the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 5 by hatching conspiracy in connivance with the Computer Operator sought removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to reply to simple query of this Court that what ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 ::: 6 jg.wp3647.15.odt steps were taken by the petitioner to verify the record before issuance of resident certificates. It was an attempt of the learned counsel to submit before this Court that as per the Government Circular dated 1-11-2013, the petitioner was only to sign the certificates and the Computer Operator is the person vest with the powers of issuance of said certificate. Perusal of the circular dated 1-11-2013 heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the circular deals with the subject of charging fees in respect of 19 certificates to be issued by the Gram Panchayat under e-panchayat project. The object behind issuance of circular is in respect of updating the methods and procedures for issuance of certificate in the Gram Panchatyat. Perusal of the circular shows that for the effective implementation of e-panchayat project, the basic facilities are made available to the panchayat, such as, computers, printers, internet, web cameras and computer operator. The further object is to provide certificates to those persons in rural areas by adopting a transparent and effective mode.
The circular then states that instead of earlier mode of issuance of certificates in either written format or in printed format, the new method is to be adopted i.e. the certificates are to be issued by adopting the digital mode or by adopting computerized formats. Then the circular states about the charges in respect of various certificates.
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 :::7 jg.wp3647.15.odt Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on clause 7 of the circular which reads as :
7½ laxzke dsanzkekQZr loZ nk[kys ns.;klkBh ykx.kkjs vko';d rs v|;kor nIrj @ vfHkys[ks xzkelsodkus lax.kd ifjpkydkl miyC/k d:u |kos-
meaning thereby a duty is caste upon the Gramsevak to make available all the necessary and up to date record to the Computer Operator.
Learned counsel also referred to clause 8 of the circular and the same reads thus :
8½ lax.kd ifjpkydkus nk[kY;kalkBh vko';d vlysyh ekfgrh vpwd Hk:u R;koj fu;ekuqlkj xzkelsod @ ljiap ;kaph Lok{kjh ?ks Åu Rojhr nk[kys laca/khr ukxfjdkauk forjhr gksrhy ;kph n{krk ?;koh- It was the attempt of the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit before this Court that by clause 8, the Computer Operator is vest with the power to issue certificate. By any stretch, clause 8 cannot be read as has submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Clause 8 deals with the duty cast upon the Computer Operator, namely, collecting the correct and updated information, storing the said information in the database and further duty is cast upon the Computer Operator to see that the citizens received these certificates expeditiously and the distribution of these certificates also is not delayed. Nowhere, the clause
8 fixed the responsibilities on the Computer Operator to sign certificate.
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 :::8 jg.wp3647.15.odt The certificates are to be signed by the Gramsevaks or Sarpanch as per rules. Looking by any angle to clause 8, it nowhere states that the Sarpanch is not even bother to verify the record and is supposed to put the signature mechanically or blindly. Appendix "A" of the said circular refers to various certificates and charges and serial no. 3 is the resident certificate. Thus what the circular dated 1-11-2013 deals with is on the procedural aspects and for adopting the modern methods as well and an object of avoiding the delay in issuance of certificates. Thus the circular on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance is only in respect of the method and the procedure.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed heavy reliance on the enquiry report i.e. the enquiry conducted by the Extension Officer or the Block Development Officer. Even the said enquiry report refers to the statement of the Computer Operator who states that the respondent no. 5 pressurized him to prepare the certificate. In the said report, a reference is made to the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner in the statement before the Extension Officer flatly denies her signature on the resident certificates. It is interesting to note that before the Extension Officer, the petitioner flatly denied her signature and she states that the certificate is not signed by ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 ::: 9 jg.wp3647.15.odt her but somebody made a fabricated signature on the said document whereas in the statement before the Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner takes a somersault. In the statement before the Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner states that the Computer Operator prepared the certificate and it was sent to her. In her statement, she states that she signed the said certificate under bonafide impression.
Thus, two documents if read in juxtaposition, it clearly shows that on one hand, the petitioner flatly denies her signature and on the other hand the petitioner admits her signature on the said document and submits that it was signed under bonafide impression. The Chief Executive Officer in his enquiry though found that there was no supporting material in respect of the first charge against the petitioner, the petitioner was responsible for the second charge, namely, the petitioner without verification of any record issued resident certificates in the name of two persons who were already dead.
8. Shri Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner also made an attempt to place reliance on Section 180 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act to submit that as the action of the petitioner was under
bonafide impression, no action ought to have been initiated against the petitioner. It was the attempt to submit before this Court that in good ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 ::: 10 jg.wp3647.15.odt faith, the petitioner signed the said resident certificates. I am unable to accept even this submission of learned counsel for petitioner for more than one reason. Firstly, as stated above, the petitioner herself made two contradictory statements in two enquiries, firstly, a stand was taken that it was not her signature and fabricated one and before other authority, a stand was taken that the signature was under bonafide impression. The issue in the present matter is in respect of the responsibilities of the petitioner being Sarpanch of the Village, namely, Bokhara. While issuing certificates, the Sarpanch ought to have subjectively satisfied herself and in this process, verification is expected.
It cannot be stated that the Sarpanch is supposed to issue the certificates mechanically without even verifying the record. In the present case, the petitioner issued resident certificates in the name of two persons when these two persons were already dead when the certificates were issued under the signature of the petitioner. The minimum and basic expectation from the petitioner was of verification of record before issuance of the certificates. Even, this minimum expectation was not complied with by the petitioner who was occupying the post of elected Sarpach of village. Thus, the petitioner cannot take this spacious plea under the bar created under Section 180 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 :::11 jg.wp3647.15.odt
9. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner while passing the order dated 7-7-2014 failed to record any reason and the order was passed mechanically. Though there is some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is cryptic order and there is only observation in respect of the admission of the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate forum, as such, the attack on the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur is of not much help to the petitioner. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard by this Court on all the points raised by the petitioner before the authorities, namely, the Additional Commissioner and before the Hon'ble Minister. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to submit before this Court that the Hon'ble Minister failed to consider the record and passed the order mechanically, I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The Minister in his detail order referred to the submissions and the grounds raised by the petitioner i.e. the appellant before the Minister. The Minister then refers to the perusal of the material record. The Minister also deals with the submission of the petitioner that by playing mischief, the Upa-Sarpanch got the document ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 ::: 12 jg.wp3647.15.odt prepared from the Computer Operator. The Minister observed that for such verification, the petitioner could have also sought assistance from the Gramsevak. The Minister further observed that before issuance of resident certificates, the petitioner could have certainly verified the factual aspects either from record or from the Gramsevak and the petitioner without undertaking any such exercise issued the certificates.
No fault can be found in the observations of the Minister. The submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was only to sign the document and it was responsibility of the Computer Operator to verify the material to issue the certificate would lead to a submission that the Sarpanch is supposed to act mechanically and blindly. Such submission is neither logical, reasonable nor can be accepted. Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the order impugned in the present petition is just and proper. No error is committed by the Minister while passing the order. The petition thus, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. Shri Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for stay to the order of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 1-7-2015, this Court granted ad-interim stay to the implementation of the impugned order. As there was interim order ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 ::: 13 jg.wp3647.15.odt passed in favour of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner be protected for some more period as the petitioner is willing to approach the higher forum challenging the order of this Court. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of this Court is stayed only for a period of four weeks.
Rule is discharged.
ig JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2017 00:47:53 :::