JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the Order dated 31-8-2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Latur by which order the Additional Collector has, inter alia, allowed the application filed by one Pandharinath Tukaram and Vilas Sanjay Pawar for disqualification of the petitioner for violation of Section 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’, for short), in the matter of holding the Gram Sabha meetings and the monthly meetings. By the said order, the petitioner has been held to be disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch and the said post has been declared to be vacant. 2. The factual matrix involved in the petition is stated thus - . The petitioner contested the elections to the Village Panchayat, Hadolti held sometime in June 2005. There are in all 15 members of the said Village Panchayat. The Respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein have lost in the said elections. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch on 27-7-2005 for a period of five years. The Respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein filed an application dated 29-6-2006 before the Additional Collector seeking that action should be taken against the petitioner for violation of Section 7 read with Section 36 of the said Act. It was the case of the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 that the petitioner as a Sarpanch has failed to hold three Gram Sabha meetings in the financial year 2005-2006 and also failed to hold three monthly meetings. Acting on the said application filed by the Respondents, the Additional Collector issued notices to the petitioner and the Gram Sevak on 7-8-2006. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner filed his reply and denied the allegations of the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 made in the said application. The petitioner in so far as three Gram Sabha meetings are concerned, gave his justification for not holding the meetings on the scheduled dates and informed the Additional Collector that said Gram Sabha meetings and the monthly meetings were subsequently held. It appears that a report was also called from the Block Development Officer, Ahmedpur, who after verifying the record has submitted his report. It appears that a report was also called from the Block Development Officer, Ahmedpur, who after verifying the record has submitted his report. The Additional Collector who is the delegatee of the powers of the Collector under Section 7 and 36 of the said Act came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to hold the Gram Sabha and monthly meetings without sufficient cause and, therefore, he was negligent in holding the Gram Sabha and monthly meetings and, therefore, by the impugned order, disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Sarpanch for the remainder of the term and declared the post of Sarpanch vacant. As indicated above, it is this order which is impugned in the present petition. 3. I have heard Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri V. J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and Shri S. K. Kadam, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted by Shri Patil at the outset that the petitioner is not pressing the point of the competency of the Additional Collector to pass the order and would therefore, proceed on the basis that the order is intra-vires the powers of the Additional Collector. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner had given sufficient justification for not holding the Gram Sabha meetings and the monthly meetings on the dates they were slated to be held. In so far as the Gram Sabha meetings are concerned, according to the learned Counsel, since the petitioner has assumed the post of Sarpanch in July 2005, he was obliged to hold the first meeting in November 2005. However, the said meeting had to be postponed on account of the fact that there was a demand of the villagers that since they were busy in agricultural operations being the harvesting time the said meeting be postponed. In so far as Gram Sabha meeting dated 26-1-2006 is concerned, the said meeting had to be postponed on account of the fact that proceeding book was not available as the same was deposited with the Deputy Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur and the villagers informed the petitioner that they would like to see the minutes of the last meeting and hence the said meeting of the Gram Sabha was required to be postponed and was ultimately held on 26-2-2006. The learned Counsel submitted that in so far as the meeting dated 1-5-2006 is concerned, on account of the death of the grand father of the petitioner who was hospitalized prior thereto, the said meeting could not be held on the said date as the petitioner’s grand father expired on 1-5-2006. In so far as the monthly meetings are concerned, the learned Counsel submitted that the meeting which was to be held in January 2006 could not be held on account of the fact that the proceeding books were not available and were with the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and in respect of the monthly meeting dated 1-5-2006, the same reason that the petitioner’s grand father expired on 1-5-2006 was applicable. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to the scheme of Section 7 and 36 of the said Act, wherein the Collector can for sufficient reasons to condone the lapse in holding the said Gram Sabha and monthly meetings on the said dates. The learned Counsel submitted that postponement on account of the agricultural operations is provided for in the rules itself. The learned Counsel submited that it is not as if the petitioner failed to hold the said meetings. However, for the reasons mentioned earlier, the said meetings were not held on the said dates but were held subsequently. The learned Counsel relied upon the impugned order wherein the total number of meetings held by the petitioner as a Sarpanch have been stated. Since the petitioner held 14 meetings of the Gram Sabha and 15 meetings of the Panchayat in the said financial year, the petitioner cannot be said to be negligent in performance of his duties as a Sarpanch. The learned Counsel submitted that the reasons cited by the petitioner in holding said meetings on the postponed dates deserves to be accepted. 6. On behalf of the main contesting Respondents i.e. the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who were the complainants, Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel contended that it is mandatory for the Sarpanch in terms of Section 7 and Section 36 read with Rule 3 to hold the meetings of the Gram Sabha and monthly meeting of Gram Panchayat. 6. On behalf of the main contesting Respondents i.e. the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who were the complainants, Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel contended that it is mandatory for the Sarpanch in terms of Section 7 and Section 36 read with Rule 3 to hold the meetings of the Gram Sabha and monthly meeting of Gram Panchayat. In the instant case, since the said meetings were not held admittedly on the dates on which they were supposed to be held but lateron there is a breach and violation of the said provisions and, therefore, the petitioner herein stands automatically disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch. In so far as the monthly meetings are concerned, relying upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1981 Mh.L.J. p. 815 in the matter of Gunwantrao Yeshwantrao vs. State of Maharashtra and another, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that failure to convene even a single monthly meeting without any sufficient cause would automatically disqualify the Sarpanch. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case, as many as two monthly meetings have not been held by the petitioner, and therefore, there has been a breach of Section 37 and Rule 3 of the Bombay Village Panchayt (Meetings) Rules, 1959. The learned Counsel further submitted that in terms of the Government Circular dated 30-9-2000, four Gram Sabha meetings are to be held on the following dates: 1. 26th of January 2. 1st of May 3. 15th of August 4. 2nd of September Since the said dates have some significance, the Government by the said Circular has directed the holding of the meetings of the Gram Sabha on the said dates and, therefore, non holding of the meetings on the said dates would entail an automatic disqualification. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that though the meetings have been held on some other dates, that would not absolve the petitioner from the rigours of the said provisions. 7. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader Shri S. K. Kadam, adopted the arguments of Shri Dixit and submitted that failure to hold the meetings of the Gram Sabha and the mothly meetings of the Panchayat entails an automatic disqualification. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. 7. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader Shri S. K. Kadam, adopted the arguments of Shri Dixit and submitted that failure to hold the meetings of the Gram Sabha and the mothly meetings of the Panchayat entails an automatic disqualification. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. Since the disqualification has been prescribed by the statute, it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant excerpts of Section 7(1), Section 36 and Rule 3. 7. Meetings of Gram Sabha.- (1) There shall be held at least (Six meetings) of the Gram Sabha (every financial year) on such date, at such (time and place and in such manner) as may be prescribed (and if the Sarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch fails without sufficient cause, to (hold (any of such four meetings), he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of the term of office of the members (of the Panchayat; and the Secretary of the Panchayat shall also if, prima facie, found responsible of any lapse in convening such meeting, be liable to be suspended, and for being proceeded against, for such other disciplinary action as provided under the relevant rules]. The decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was such sufficient cause shall be final]: [Provided that, the Sarpanch may, at any time of his own motion, and, shall, on requisition of the Standing Committee, Panchayat Samiti, or Chief Executive Officer, call a meeting of the Gram Sabha within the period specified in the requisition; and, on failure to do so, the Chief Executive Officer shall require the Block Development Officer to call the meeting within fifteen days from the date he is so required to do. The meeting shall, notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (3), be presided over by him or any officer authorised by the Block Development Officer, in that behalf.] [Provided further that, a period of not more than three months shall be allowed to elapse between the two meetings of the Gram Sabha : Provided also that, if the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, fails to call any such meeting within the specified period; the Secretary shall call the meeting and it shall be presumed that such meeting has been called with the concurrence of the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch.] 36. Time and place of sitting of panchayat and procedure at meetings. - . The time and place of sitting, and the procedure at a meeting, of the panchayat shall be such as may be precribed : . [Provided that, if the Sarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch, fails without sufficient cause, to convene the meetings of the panchayat in any financial year according to the rules prescribed in that behalf, he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of the term of office of the members of the Panchayat. The decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was sufficient cause shall be final. Rule 3. (1) Every panchayat shall meet at least once in every month. Subject to the provisions of these rules, the person presiding at such ordinary meeting may, at the ends of such meeting, in consultation with the majority of the members present, announce the date of teh next ordinary meeting : Provided that, the Sarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch may having regard to the exigencies of the situation, fix another date of such next ordinary meeting. (2) The date of every special general meeting shall be fixed at the Sarpanch, or in his absence by the Upa- Sarpanch. 9. From a reading of Section 7 it can be seen that it postulates that if the Sarpanch or in his absence Upsarpanch fails without cause to hold any of such four meetings, he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or as the case may be Upsarpanch. 9. From a reading of Section 7 it can be seen that it postulates that if the Sarpanch or in his absence Upsarpanch fails without cause to hold any of such four meetings, he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or as the case may be Upsarpanch. In so far as the question whether the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch has shown sufficient cause for not holding meetings of the Gram Sabha on the dates on which they were to be held, the decision of the Collector in that regard is final. 10. The monthly meetings are covered by Section 36 of the said Act and it is postulated that failure on the part of the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch to convene the meetings of the Panchayat in any financial year according to the rules prescribed in that behalf, he shall be disqualified for continuing as the Sarpanch or as the case may be Upsarpanch. As in Section 7, the decision as to whether sufficient cause has been shown by the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch for not holding a meeting of the Panchayat on the dates prescribed, the decision of the Collector is final. 11. In so far Rule 3 is concerned, it prescribes that the Panchayat shall meet atleast once in every month. By the proviso to the said Section, a discretion has been vested in the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch to fix another date for any of the ordinary meetings of the Panchayat if the exigencies of the situation so demand. 12. In the instant case, as has been mentioned in the order, the petitioner has held as many as 14 meetings of the Gram Sabha and 15 meetings of the Panchayat. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner has failed in his duty as a Sarpanch to hold the meetings of the Gram Sabha and the monthly meetings of the Panchayat. The occasion for the Respondents to file the application for disqualification of the petitioner was on account of his non holding of the three meetings of the Gram Sabha to be held in November 2005, on 26-1-2006 and 1st May 2006 and the monthly meetings to be held in January 2006 and 1st May 2006. The Additional Collector has disqualified the petitioner by the impugned order for not holding the said meetings on the said dates. The Additional Collector has disqualified the petitioner by the impugned order for not holding the said meetings on the said dates. Pertinently, the petitioner has not been disqualified on the other grounds mentioned in the application of the Respondents. 13. In so far as Gram Sabha which was to be held in November 2005 though the said meeting of the Gram Sabha was not held in November 2005 it was held on 25-12-2005. The explanation of the petitioner is that the said meeting could not be held in November 2005 on account of the fact that the villagers were busy in agricultural operations since it was harvesting time. The Rule also provides that the meeting can be postponed on account of the villagers being busy in agricultural operations. In so far as the meeting which was to be held on 26-1-2006 and which was actually held on 22-2-2006, the explanation of the petitioner is that the proceedings books of the earlier meetings were not available as the same were deposited with the Deputy Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur and the villagers having indicated that they would like to see the proceedings book before the meeting and hence the said meeting could not be held on 26th of January. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had produced the receipt of the books being deposited with the Zilla Parishad. In so far as meeting dated 1-5-2006 is concerned, the explanation of the petitioner is that due to the death of his grand father on the same date, the said meeting could not be held. In so far as the monthly meetings are concerned, the explanation for not holding the monthly meetings in January 2006 and it was actually held on 13-2-2006 is the same explanation as for not holding the Gram Sabha meeting on 26-1-2006 namely; that the proceeding books were not available. 14. In so far as the monthly meeting dated 1-5-2000 is concerned, the same explanation i.e. the death of the grand father of the petitioner has been given. Under the said Section 7 and 36 of the said Act, it is within the domain of the Collector to accept the explanation for not holding the meetings on the dates on which they were to be held and the said decision is final. Under the said Section 7 and 36 of the said Act, it is within the domain of the Collector to accept the explanation for not holding the meetings on the dates on which they were to be held and the said decision is final. In the instant case, the Additional Collector who decided the matter has not accepted the explanation on the ground that in so far as the meeting of the Gram Sabha which was held to be in November 2005 and 26-2-2006 is concerned, there is no material produced on record by the petitioner in support of the said explanation. In so far as the explanation for the meeting dated 1st May 2006 is concerned, the Additional Collector has held that the petitioner could have taken leave on account of the death of his grand father and that since the petitioner has not taken leave the Upa Sarpanch cannot be made responsible. 15. Having considered the explanation given by the petitioner for not holding the Gram Sabha meetings and the monthly meeting on the dates on which they were to be held and having considered the findings recorded by the Additional Collector whilst rejecting the said explanation, in my view, the Additional Collector has adopted too technical a approach. As indicated hereinabove, the Additional Collector in the impugned order has himself extracted number of Gram Sabha meetings and the monthly meetings that have been held by the petitioner. It is not as if the petitioner has scuttled the democratic process. In fact, the number of meetings that have been held as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, far exceed the meetings usually held in other Gram Panchayats. As indicated above, the meetings were held on some other dates. The said provisions have been introduced so that at the village level there is an active participation of the villagers in the local self Government. In my view, the explanation tendered by the petitioner for not holding the meetings on the dates when they were slated to be held appears to be bona fide and, therefore, deserves to be accepted. 16. In that view of the matter, the impugned Order dated 31-8-2006 passed by the Additional Collector is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) with parties to bear their respective costs.