“It must be borne in mind that severe the punishment, greater has to be the care taken”: Bombay High Court
It must be borne in mind that severe the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed, this was emphasised in the recent case of Rajendra Radhakisan Raut v. The State of Maharashtra And Others [WRIT PETITION NO.11717 OF 2021], listed in the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. The judgement was pronounced on 10th February, 2022, and the said proceedings were presided by Justice SMT. Bharati H. Dangre.
The facts, as presented before the court of law, are as follows. A move was initiated for removal of its Sarpanch by alleging corruption, gross negligence and misconduct in discharge of his duties and his removal was sought by one of the villager/voter, who succeeded in his venture, but in an appeal proceedings, when the Sarpanch is restored to his office, he has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. The election was to the post of the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Nalwandi, Taluka and District Beed.
During the proceedings, many landmark judgments of M.M. Malhotra vs. Union of India, [2005 (8) SCC 351], Bhanumati vs. State of U.P., [2010 (12) SCC 1 : AIR 2010 SC 3796], State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, [1999 (6) SCC 172] were quoted in order to put emphasize on the pertinent case.
The ruling in the case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, [1999 (6) SCC 172] was emphasised. It was held that “It must be borne in mind that severe the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed.”
The Court, after hearing both the sides, analysing facts, and considering a perusal of all evidences, emphasised the ruling in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and others [(2012) 4 SCC 407]. It was held that “In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is removed by the procedure established under law.” The court in light of the above, held that “The Writ Petition assailing the said order must necessarily fail and is dismissed.”
Judgment reviewed by Pranav Sharma