wp5853.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 5853 of 2015
Shailesh son of Janrao Dongre,
aged 34 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Dapura [Majlapur],
Tq. & Distt. Akola. ..... Petitioner.
Org. Applicant
ig Versus
1. The Collector, Akola.
2. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division,
Amravati.
3. Secretary,
Gram Panchayat,
Dapura [Majlapur],
Tq. & Distt. Akola. .... Respondents.
Org. Respdts.
*****
Mr. S. V. Sohoni, Adv., for the petitioner.
Ms. T. Khan, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. A.M. Tirukh, Adv., for respondent no.3.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date : 10th August, 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2016 00:28:35 ::: wp5853.15.odt 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
02. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10-3-2014 passed by the respondent no. 2 in the appeal filed under Section 16 (2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 [for short "the said Act"]. By the impugned order, the aforesaid appeal has been dismissed.
03. The petitioner contested the elections for the post of Member of the respondent no. 3, Gram Panchayat. He was declared elected on 10-8-2010. According to the petitioner, the accounts of the election expenses were submitted on 22-11-
2010. However, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on account of non-submission of election expenses. The Collector by order dated 13-2-2013 held the petitioner to be disqualified under the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and by the impugned order, the said appeal had been dismissed.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2016 00:28:35 :::wp5853.15.odt 3
04. Shri Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted election expenses on 22-11-
2010. The subsequent notice dated 1-6-2011 issued by the office of the Collector was never received by the petitioner and hence the petitioner would not contest the proceedings before the Collector. The ground in this regard was specifically raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner but even the appellate authority failed to take the same into consideration. Merely by accepting the report dated 23-4-2013, the order of disqualification had been maintained. It was, therefore, submitted that in absence of due notice, the order of disqualification could not have been passed.
05. Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, supported the impugned order.
She relied upon the report dated 23-4-2013 submitted by the Collector and, therefore, urged that as the accounts were not submitted, the order of disqualification was justified.
06. Shri Tirukh, learned counsel appeared for the respondent ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2016 00:28:35 ::: wp5853.15.odt 4 no. 3.
07. Perusal of the order dated 13-2-2013 indicates that the Collector proceeded to disqualify the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not responded to the notice dated 1-6-
2011. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, a specific ground in that regard was raised. There is no consideration whatsoever of the aforesaid ground by the Divisional Commissioner. The provisions of Section 14B of the said Act contemplate grant of reasonable opportunity to the concerned party before any order of disqualification is passed. In the present case, when a specific ground regarding non-service of notice dated 1-6-2011 was raised, a finding in that regard ought to have been recorded.
This is all the more necessary in view of the acknowledgment dated 22-11-2010 placed on record by the petitioner indicating submission of election accounts.
08. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. The proceedings deserve to be adjudicated afresh. Hence, the following order :
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2016 00:28:35 :::wp5853.15.odt 5 [a] The order dated 13-2-2013 passed by the Collector as well as the order dated 10-3-2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner are quashed and set aside.
[b] The Collector, Akola shall decide the proceedings afresh in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment. The proceedings shall be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau| CERTIFICATE I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 11th Aug., 2016 Pvt. Secretary.
-0-0-0-0-
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2016 00:28:35 :::