Pradip Kumar S/O Premdas Meshram vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur ...

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 6325 Bom
Judgement Date : 25 October, 2016

Bombay High Court
Pradip Kumar S/O Premdas Meshram vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur ... on 25 October, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
                                                                                                               wp.4981.16
                                                                 1




                                                                                                                   
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          BENCH AT NAGPUR 
                                                 ...




                                                                                     
                               WRIT PETITION NO.  4981/2016




                                                                                    
              Pradip Kumar  s/o Premdas Meshram 
              a/a 53 years occu: Member of Panchayat Samiti
              R/o Bhiwapur, Post : Chikli
              Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia.                                                           ...PETITIONER




                                                                    
                         v e r s u s

    1)        Divisional Commissioner 
              Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 
                                         
                                        
    2)        Khadaksingh  s/o Saduji  Jagne 
              a/a 43 years. Occu: Agril.
              R/o Khamari  Po: Chikli 
              Tah. Tirora, Dist Gondia.                                                  ..RESPONDENTS
       

    ...........................................................................................................................
                         Mr. A.A.Sambhare,  Advocate  for  petitioner
    



                         Mr. J.Y.Ghurde, A.G.P .for respondent no. 1
                         Mr. I.N. Choudhari, Adv. for respondent No.2
    ............................................................................................................................

                                                         CORAM:   A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED : 25th October, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Considering the short issue involved, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner disqualifying the petitioner under ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:57:04 ::: wp.4981.16 2 provisions of Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by Shri A.A.Sambharay, his learned counsel, that the proceedings were heard by the Additional Commissioner(Administration),while the order of disqualification was passed by the Divisional Commissioner. He has referred to ground (E) in the Writ Petition as well as the Roznama of the said proceedings. He submits that on 22.7.2016 the counsel for the petitioner was heard by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and thereafter on the next date, written notes of arguments were placed on record. He therefore.

Submits that the Authority which has heard the arguments has not passed the impugned order.

3. These submissions are opposed by Shri J.Y. Ghurde, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Shri I.N. Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent no.2. It is submitted that merely because both the said Authorities had signed the Roznama on 22.7.2016 and 5.8.2016, the same does not indicate that the arguments were heard by one Authority and the matter was decided by the other Authority.

4. Perusal of the Roznama indicates that on 22.7.2016 oral arguments were advanced by the petitioner and thereafter on 5.8.2016 written notes of arguments came to be placed on record. On behalf of the respondent no.2 his counsel was present on 27.6.2016. The Roznama indicates that the Divisional Commissioner as well as the Additional ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:57:04 ::: wp.4981.16 3 Commissioner (Administration) have signed the same. If only the Divisional Commissioner was empowered to hear the proceedings, there was no reason for the Additional Commissioner (Administration) to sign the same. This aspect supports the stand of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and Ground (E) raised in the Writ Petition, interests of justice would be served if the respondent no.1, who is the concerned Authority himself hears the proceedings and passes an order thereon. On that count, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 22.8.2016 is set aside.

The proceedings are remanded to th respondent no.1 for deciding the same afresh after giving due opportunity to the parties. For said purpose, the parties shall appear through their counsel before the respondent no.1 on 16th November, 2016. The respondent no.1 shall decide the proceedings within a period of one month from the said date. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the reasons assigned in the impugned order and the proceedings shall be decided on its own merit and in accordance with law.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

JUDGE sahare ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:57:04 :::