Bombay High Court
Satyawan Ananta Padawale vs State Of Maharashtrathr Sec. Rural … on 21 April, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:17854
12- WP- 5204-2025.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2025
Satyawan Ananta Padwale ... Petitioner
Digitally
signed by
SHABNOOR
SHABNOOR AYUB
AYUB PATHAN
PATHAN Date:
2025.04.22
10:15:41
+0530 V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Rural
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Collector, Palghar,
Having its office at Palghar,
Dist. Palghar
3. Pratik Prabhakar Patil
Aged adult, resident of Bilawali
Village, Tal. Wadas, Dist. Palghar ... Respondents
Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji a/w Ms. Lata Bhangoji for
petitioner.
Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for State for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Sandesh D. Patil a/w Prithviraj S. Gole and Mr.
Yogesh D. Keny for respondent Nos.3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : APRIL 21, 2025
1
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2025 22:02:24 :::
12- WP- 5204-2025.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT.:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Challenge in the present petition is to the legality and
validity of the order dated 27 March 2025 passed by the Collector,
Palghar in a proceeding initiated under Section 7 of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to
as “the 1959 Act”). By the said order, the Collector allowed the
application filed by respondent No.3 and declared the petitioner –
who was elected as Sarpanch of the Bilawali Gram Panchayat –
disqualified to continue as Sarpanch on the ground of failure to
conduct any meeting for a continuous period of 90 days during the
financial year 2024-2025.
3. The factual background of the case is not much in dispute
and can be briefly stated thus: the Gram Panchayat of village
Bilawali, situated in Taluka Wada, District Palghar, is notified as a
Scheduled Area under the Presidential Notification dated 2nd
December 1986 issued under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is not disputed that the
petitioner belongs to the Varli tribe, which is recognized as a
Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order.
4. The election to the Bilawali Gram Panchayat was conducted
on 17th October 2022, in which the petitioner came to be elected
as Sarpanch. On 5th July 2024, respondent No.3 filed an
application under Section 7(1) of the 1959 Act before the
Collector, alleging that the petitioner had failed to convene the
Gram Sabha within a period of two months from the beginning of
2
::: Uploaded on – 22/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/04/2025 22:02:24 :::
12- WP- 5204-2025.doc
the financial year and had not held any meeting for a continuous
period of 90 days. The application sought a declaration that the
petitioner stood disqualified under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act.
5. Upon issuance of notice, the petitioner contested the
proceedings and filed his reply before the Collector. However, by
the impugned order dated 27th March 2025, the Collector allowed
the said application and declared the petitioner disqualified under
the aforesaid provisions.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously urged
that the impugned order passed by the Collector suffers from
jurisdictional infirmity as well as non-application of mind to the
special constitutional and statutory protections granted to
Scheduled Areas and their governance through local self-
government institutions.
7. In this regard, reliance is placed on the provisions of Chapter
III-A of the 1959 Act, which was inserted by Maharashtra Act No.
27 of 2003, to give effect to the provisions of Part IX of the
Constitution as modified by the Fifth Schedule, read with PESA
(Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. The said
Chapter contains special provisions for the functioning of Gram
Sabhas and Panchayats in Scheduled Areas.
8. Section 54-1A of the 1959 Act is particularly relevant and
reads thus:
“Section 54-1A. Special Provisions relating to village and
Gram Sabha – Notwithstanding anything contained in
Sections 4, 5 or any other provisions of this Act, in the3
::: Uploaded on – 22/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/04/2025 22:02:24 :::
12- WP- 5204-2025.docScheduled Areas,– (a) a habitation or a group of habitations
or a hamlet or a group of hamlets comprising a community
and managing its affairs in accordance with traditions and
customs, and which is declared as a village in the prescribed
manner shall be the village for the purposes of this Chapter;
(b) every village, so declared under clause (a), shall have a
Gram Sabha consisting of persons whose names are included
in the electoral rolls for the panchayat at the village level
and a panchayat may comprise of one or more than one of
such villages.”
9. The use of the non-obstante clause in Section 54-1A is
significant. It gives an overriding effect to the special provisions in
Chapter III-A over any inconsistent provisions in the rest of the Act.
The object and purpose of enacting such special provisions is to
recognize and respect the distinct socio-cultural and administrative
framework prevailing in Scheduled Areas. It mandates governance
by traditions and customs of the community and decentralized
democratic decision-making through empowered Gram Sabhas.
10. Therefore, while interpreting provisions such as Sections 7
and 8 of the Act, due regard must be given to the contextual
framework of Scheduled Areas. The disqualification for not
convening meetings must be assessed not only on the touchstone
of statutory defaults but also with reference to the functional
realities and community-based participatory governance envisaged
under Chapter III-A.
4
::: Uploaded on – 22/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/04/2025 22:02:24 :::
12- WP- 5204-2025.doc
11. The petitioner being a member of the Scheduled Tribe
elected from a Scheduled Area deserves protection against rigid
application of general disqualification norms, especially when the
statute itself envisages a customized governance structure in such
areas. The Collector has failed to appreciate this constitutional and
statutory mandate.
12. At the heart of the controversy lies the interpretation of
Section 54C vis-à-vis Section 7 of the 1959 Act, and their relative
applicability to Scheduled Areas. Section 54C falls within Chapter
III-A of the Act, which has been inserted by Maharashtra Act No.
27 of 2003, with a specific object of introducing special provisions
applicable to Panchayats and Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas, in
conformity with the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled
Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA).
13. Section 54C provides for the procedure and frequency for
convening meetings of the Gram Sabha. On the other hand,
Section 7, which is part of Chapter II of the 1959 Act, lays down
general grounds for disqualification of members of Gram
Panchayats, including Sarpanch, and applies generally to all
Panchayats constituted under the Act. It is important to note that
Chapter III-A was enacted with full awareness of the existing
framework, including Section 7, and yet, the legislature
consciously omitted any provision for disqualification on the
ground of failure to convene Gram Sabha meetings in Section 54C.
Such omission cannot be treated as accidental or inadvertent.
5
::: Uploaded on – 22/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/04/2025 22:02:24 :::
12- WP- 5204-2025.doc
14. The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant — that
special provisions prevail over general ones — is squarely attracted
in the present context. Section 7, being a general provision relating
to disqualification, must yield to the special procedure prescribed
in Section 54C for Gram Sabhas situated in Scheduled Areas. The
legislative intent behind inserting Chapter III-A is clearly to
recognize the unique socio-political realities of Scheduled Areas
and to allow for greater autonomy and community-led decision-
making, without subjecting these areas to the rigid application of
the general disqualification regime under Chapter II.
15. The mischief rule of interpretation, as laid down by the
Supreme Court in Heydon’s Case , also supports this interpretation.
The mischief sought to be remedied by Chapter III-A was the
inadequate representation and participation of Scheduled Tribe
communities in local self-governance. Therefore, the insertion of
Chapter III-A must be given purposive interpretation, and its
provisions must be given full effect.
16. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 sought
to argue that the non-obstante clause contained in Section 54-1A
applies only to that specific provision, and not to the subsequent
provisions including Section 54C. I find it difficult to accept this
argument.
17. A non-obstante clause is a legislative device meant to give
overriding effect to the provision in which it is found. The wording
of Section 54-1A opens with:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 4, 5 or any
6
::: Uploaded on – 22/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/04/2025 22:02:24 :::
12- WP- 5204-2025.docother provisions of this Act, in the Scheduled Areas…”.
18. The words “or any other provisions of this Act” are of wide
amplitude, and by legislative design, intend to override all
inconsistent provisions of the 1959 Act insofar as Scheduled Areas
are concerned. The clause is not confined merely to the contents of
Section 54-1A, but extends to the entire Chapter III-A, which forms
a complete and self-contained code for Panchayati Raj governance
in Scheduled Areas.
19. Accepting the argument advanced by respondent No.3 would
render the object and scheme of Chapter III-A nugatory and defeat
the constitutional mandate under the Fifth Schedule and PESA,
which require decentralized self-governance through Gram Sabhas
with due regard to customs and traditions of tribal communities.
20. Support for this interpretation is also found in a Co-ordinate
Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1222 of 2012 –
Madhuri Kashinath Anjikar v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati
Division, wherein the Court considered Section 54D — also part of
Chapter III-A — dealing with motions of no confidence in
Scheduled Areas. The Court held that the special procedure laid
down in Section 54D must prevail, and general provisions relating
to Panchayats would not apply in such cases.
21. Applying the same logic to the present case, once Section
54C prescribes the procedure for Gram Sabha meetings, and omits
any penal consequence such as disqualification, it must be
presumed that the legislature did not intend to attract Section 7 in
such contexts. Therefore, the Collector committed a jurisdictional
7
::: Uploaded on – 22/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/04/2025 22:02:24 :::
12- WP- 5204-2025.doc
error by invoking Section 7 of the 1959 Act to disqualify the
petitioner, who is the elected Sarpanch of a Panchayat falling in a
notified Scheduled Area.
22. In view of the specific and special legislative framework
applicable to Scheduled Areas, and the constitutional protections
accorded to Scheduled Tribes, the impugned order passed under
the general provision of Section 7 is not sustainable in law.
23. In light of the above discussion, I am of the considered
opinion that the Collector erred in invoking Section 7 in the facts
of the present case without appreciating the applicability of
Chapter III-A and the overriding effect of the non-obstante clause
in Section 54-1A. The failure to convene meetings of the Gram
Sabha, if any, is governed solely by the procedure and framework
of Section 54C, which does not prescribe disqualification as a
consequence.
24. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27 March 2025 is
quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be restored to the
position of Sarpanch of Bilawali Gram Panchayat forthwith.
25. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
26. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order
as to costs.
27. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed
of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
8
::: Uploaded on – 22/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/04/2025 22:02:24 :::
[ad_1]
Source link