Opposition members of the Bhor Panchayat Samiti in Pune district walked out of a meeting on October 30, alleging that they were being excluded from proceedings, denied development funds and that changes had been made to the meeting minutes. They warned of protests if the allegations are not investigated.
The BJP members left the meeting soon after it began without participating in discussions or approving any agenda items. Members Rohan Bathe, Sushma Chavan and Geetanjali Ambawale later raised the allegations at a press conference, according to a report by Lokmat – Pune.
The BJP’s panchayat samiti members submitted a written representation to chairperson Manisha Kank and the group development officer. In the representation, they alleged that the chairperson was conducting the body’s work in a politically motivated and biased manner.
The opposition members claimed that views expressed by them during meetings were not being recorded in the official minutes. They also alleged that meeting agendas and minutes were not being made available within the prescribed time. According to their representation, opposition members had formally sought funds for several development works but were not being allocated money through the panchayat samiti.
The members also raised concerns over what they described as inadequate provision for farmers and livestock amid drought-like conditions in the taluka. The allegation places the dispute beyond procedural disagreements and links it to the allocation of local development resources during a period of rural stress.
The most specific allegation relates to works proposed under the 15th Finance Commission. BJP members claimed that changes were made to the proposed works despite objections raised by opposition members, using the majority in the committee. They further alleged that works not read out in the meeting were included in the minutes and that the modified plan was sent to the chief executive officer of the district council for approval.
The opposition members have demanded an inquiry into the preparation and submission of the revised plan. They said they would begin an agitation if the matter was not investigated.
Kank rejected the allegations. She said there was no irregularity in the functioning of the panchayat samiti and that all members were being taken into confidence during its work. She described the opposition’s claims as baseless.
The dispute now centres on whether the meeting record accurately reflects the proceedings, whether the proposed 15th Finance Commission works were altered through the prescribed process, and how development demands from different members are being assessed. The written representation submitted to the chairperson and group development officer is the immediate administrative record identified in the report. The next stated step is the opposition’s demand for an inquiry, followed by a possible protest if no investigation is ordered.
