Shaukat Ali Mohd. Hussain vs Shaikh Ayub
2013 Latest Caselaw 371 Bom

                                  1                                 3559.2013 WP




                                                                         
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT
                              AURANGABAD




                                                 
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3559 OF 2013




                                                
     Shaukat Ali Mohd. Hussain,
     Age 67 years, Occu. Business,
     R/o Gawandi Mohalla, Badanpur,
     Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalana.                          ..   Petitioner




                                      
                 Versusig
     1.    Shaikh Ayub s/o Sk. Haji Sk. Ahmed,
           Age 49 years, Occu. Agri.,
                     
           R/o : Beside Jama Masjid,
           Jalna-Aurangabad Road, Badnapur,
           Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.

     2.    The Village Development Officer,
      


           Grampanchayat Office, Badnapur,
           Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
   



     3.    The Additional Collector,
           Jalna, Dist. Jalna.





     4.    The Additional Commissioner,
           Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

     5.    The State of Maharashtra,
           through its Secretary,





           Rural Development Department,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.                         ..   Respondents

     Shri Vijay V. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
     Shri G.B. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 1
     Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent No. 2
     Shri K.M. Suryawanshi , A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3 to 5 / State
                                      ...




                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:35:57 :::
                                     2                               3559.2013 WP




                                                                         
                                           CORAM :        S.S. SHINDE, J.




                                                 
                   Date of Reserving the Judgment :19th November, 2013

          Date of pronouncement of the Judgment :18th December,2013

     JUDGMENT :

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

parties taken up for final hearing.

2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order

dated 12-06-2012, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner,

Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Appeal No. CR/35/2012.

. Background facts leading for filing the present writ petition are

as under :-

The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are residents of village

Badnapur, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. Respondent No. 1 herein

contested the election of village panchayat, Badnapur, held for the

year 2010-2015 from ward No. 6, which was reserved for Other

Backward Class category (OBC). It is the case of the petitioner that,

respondent No. 1 on 08-10-2010, has filed his nomination and

contested the election which was scheduled on 25-10-2010.

Respondent No. 1 was declared as elected. It is the case of the

3 3559.2013 WP

petitioner that, respondent No. 1 on 8-10-2010, while filing nomination

form did not clear the dues of house property situated at Village

Badnapur, and did not obtain no dues certificate and also did not

annex the same with the nomination form. The house property No.

491 is in the name of respondent No. 1, however, he did not disclose

the same in the declaration along with nomination form. It is the case

of petitioner that, on the date of filing of nomination, respondent No. 1

having dues of village panchayat, Badnapur with regard to property

tax and the said fact is evident from the receipt No. 87, dated

21/11/2010 of house property No. 491, by which respondent No. 1

has paid dues after the election was over. Therefore, it is clear that

respondent No. 1 having dues prior to filing of nomination of the

property of which respondent No. 1 is a owner. The petitioner filed a

complaint before the Additional collector, Jalna, along with various

documents including record of city survey and all other documents

describing the property in the name of respondent No. 1. The

Additional Collector, Jalna-respondent No. 3, after considering the

documents and evidence placed on record allowed the complaint filed

by the petitioner and held that, respondent No. 1 is disqualified from

continuing as member of village panchayat.

3. Respondent No. 1 herein field appeal bearing No. CR/35/2012

4 3559.2013 WP

before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division,

Aurangabad. The said appeal is allowed. Hence this petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made following

submissions :-

The respondent No. 4- The Additional Commissioner,

Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, has erred in allowing the appeal

filed by respondent No.1. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the present case, the reasoning given by respondent No. 4, in

allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, is perverse and

contrary to the evidence on record. Respondent No. 4 have

committed grave error in law, by allowing the appeal filed by

respondent No. 1 herein who is guilty of suppressing material facts,

while filing the nomination form for the purpose of contesting election

of village panchayat, Badnapur. The petitioner by leading cogent

documentary as well as oral evidence has proved that respondent

No. 1 was a defaulter in paying the taxes of village panchayat,

Badnapur.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further

submitted that, the petitioner has proved that, respondent No. 1 has

suppressed the fact that, respondent No. 1 owns house property

5 3559.2013 WP

bearing C.T.S. No. 372 and C.T.S. No. 533, situated at village

Badnapur, and thus, thereby respondent No. 1 defaulted in not paying

the dues of said house property bearing No. 491 of village Badnapur.

Though, respondent No. 1 has entered his name in the city survey

record for the house property bearing No. 491. However, still willfully

he has not entered his name in the village panchayat record, in order

to avoid paying dues of the house No. 491 situated within the limits of

village panchayat, Badnapur.

6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner that, at the time of filling of nomination paper, respondent

No. 1 was having house property bearing No. 491 on his name, still

he has not disclosed the said fact in his affidavit which was to be

sworned in at the time of filling of nomination paper. Thus, it is amply

clear that, respondent No. 1 is guilty of misrepresenting the facts on

affidavit. After the election of village panchayat, Badnapur,

respondent No. 1 has paid the dues of house property bearing No.

491, on 21-11-2010, vide receipt bearing No. 87. Thus, it is crystal

clear that, prior to filling of nomination, respondent No. 1 was having

dues of the village panchayat, Badnapur and, therefore, he was a

defaulter at the relevant time, when he has contested the election of

village panchayat, Badnapur.

6 3559.2013 WP

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that,

respondent No. 4 has erronesouly held that, the Village Development

Officer has issued no dues certificate to respondent No. 1, therefore,

it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 was having any dues of the

village panchayat, Badnapur. Respondent No. 4 has failed to

consider that, respondent No. 1 in collusion with the concerned

Village Development Officer got the no dues certificate, wherein it

was stated that respondent No. 1 is not having any property dues on

his name within the limits of village Badnapur.

Respondent No. 4 has also failed to consider that respondent

No. 1 got his name registered in the city survey record, and still he

has filed the affidavit stating that, he has no any house property on

his name especially in the limits of village, Badnpuar. Respondent

No. 4 has allowed the appeal only on the ground that, no notice

u/sec. 14(1) (h) and under section 129 (1) of the Bombay Village

Panchayats Act, 1958 ( for short "said Act") was issued to respondent

No. 1 asking for payment of dues. Respondent No. 1 has suppressed

the material fact that, he is having house property on his name,

therefore, notice as contemplated under the provisions of said Act

could be issued to him and the said aspect has not been considered

by the respondent No. 4.

7 3559.2013 WP

8. Respondent No. 3- The Additional Collector, Jalna, has rightly

considered the aspect of misrepresenting the facts by respondent No.

1 and, thereby rightly allowed the complaint filed by the present

petitioner, disqualifying respondent No. 1, from continuing member of

village panchayat, Badnapur. However, the said aspect has not been

considered by the respondent No. 4 herein, thereby erred in allowing

the appeal filed by respondent No. 1.

On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it would

reveal that, respondent No. 4 has allowed the appeal filed by

respondent No. 1, merely on assumption and presumption without

relying on the evidence and submissions made by the petitioner. The

learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in the

given facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by respondent No. 1

ought to have been dismissed, confirming the judgment and order

dated 02-04-2012, passed by respondent No.3 herein.

9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the

findings recorded by the Additional Collector, Jalna and submits that

findings of fact recorded by the Additional Collector, Jalna, have not

been properly looked into by the Additional Commissioner,

Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, and by a cryptic reasons the

8 3559.2013 WP

appeal filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed. Therefore, he

submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.

10. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into

service exposition of this Court, in the case of Taibai w/o Tulshiram

Damle Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and others;

reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 369 ig and in particular head note 'B'

thereof, and submits that, if the taxes are not paid prior to the last

date of filling nominations, it will have to be held that the said member

is disqualified to be continued as a member of the panchayat. The

learned counsel also invited my attention to the Full Bench Judgment

of this Court in the case of Subhash Ganpatrao Buty and others Vs.

Maroti Krishnaji Dorlikar & others; [1975 Mh.L.J. 244] and submits

that, when the provision of the Statute is clear and unambiguous they

should receive plain and natural meaning and in that no aid can be

sought from the marginal note or the aims and objects set out in the

statement of objects and reasons. The learned Counsel further invited

my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Sholapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Umakant Shankarrao Bhagwat;

reported in [1974 Mh.L.J. 146] in C.R.A. No. 1058 of 1967 (with

C.R.A. No. 1059 of 1967) and submits that, when the provisions/

9 3559.2013 WP

Rules are mandatory the same are required to be followed strictly.

He has also invited my attention to the Full Bench Judgment in the

case of Chaitram Dagadoo Vs. Malegaon Panchayat Samiti and

others; reported in [1965; Mh.L.J. 663] and submits that, intention of

Legislature should not be allowed to be defeated because of

erroneous expression used by draftsman. He has also relied upon

the other judgments of this Court and also Supreme Court which are

enlisted herein below :-

a] Dattatraya Govind Mahajan and others etc. V.s. The State of Maharashtra and another; reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 915(1)

b] M/s. Hiralal Ratan Lal Vs. The Sales Tax Officer, Section

III, Kanpur and another; reported in AIR 1973, Supreme Court 1034.

c] Punjaji s/o Shamrao Kadam & others Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and others; reported in 2012(6) Mh.L.J. 463.

d] Arjun Sambhaji Khade and others Vs. Mangal Ankush Kharmate and others; reported in 2003(2) Mh.L.J. 295.

e] Santoshkumar and another Vs. Maharashtra Revenue

Tribunal and others; reported in [1971; Mh.L.J. 531].

f] Natesha Securities Vs. Vinayak Waman Mokashi and another; reported in [2008 (2), Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 20.]

g] Abilesh Vs. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd., reported in [1995 (2) Mh.L.J. SC 630].

h] Pooja w/o Lahu Kotlapur and others Vs. Union of India;

reported in [2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 634]

10 3559.2013 WP

i] Gangubai Laxman Bansode and others Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others; reported in [2008 (1) Mh.L.J.] 619.

Therefore, relying upon the grounds taken in the petition,

annexures thereto, the provisions of the section 14 of the said Act and

the Rules framed thereunder, the reasons recorded by the Additional

Collector, Jalna, and Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division,

Aurangabad, and the judgments cited supra, Counsel appearing for

the petitioner prays that petition deserves to be allowed.

11. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, made

following submissions :-

The present petitioner filed dispute/complaint before the

Additional Collector, Jalna, contending therein that, respondent No. 1

was having dues of Gram panchayat i.e. property tax, before filling

the nomination paper for the post of member of village panchayat. It

is pertinent to note here that, the Election Commission has its own

machinery and officers to scrutinize the nomination forms filed by the

candidates, therefore, if there would have been dues against

respondent No. 1, the scrutiny officers were empowered to reject the

nomination of respondent No.1. It is not the case of the petitioner

that, after getting elected there are some dues against respondent

11 3559.2013 WP

No. 1. This objection should have taken by the petitioner, at the time

of the scrutiny of the nomination form of respondent No. 1.

Therefore, the complaint/ dispute filed by the present petitioner before

Additional Collector, Jalna, is not maintainable or tenable. At the

time of filling the nomination, respondent No.1 has also filed no dues

certificate with the scrutiny officer. In the said certificate, it is clearly

stated/mentioned that, no property was in the name of respondent

No. 1. The present petitioner has mentioned various properties in

the name of respondent No. 1. In fact, the said properties are not in

the name of respondent No. 1. Prior to filling the nomination the

construction permission was granted to that properties i.e. house

bearing Nos. 490 and 491, which are not in the name of respondent

No. 1. Whatever properties are mentioned in the dispute by the

present petitioner, are not in the name of respondent No.1, and,

therefore, prior to filling of nomination or after being elected as

member there are no dues/ taxes against respondent No. 1.

The respondent No. 1 has deposited Rs. 95,000/- with the

village panchayat as an advance because at the relevant time, the

village panchayat was facing financial difficulties, and there was no

funds with the village panchayat for water supply. The allegations

made by the present petitioner about the tax which is due against

12 3559.2013 WP

answering respondent, is not sustainable, as per the requirement of

Section 14(h) of the said Act, "no personal shall be member of

panchayat continue as such who fails to pay any tax or fee due to the

Panchayat ( or Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on

which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded and bill for the

purpose is duly served on him)". No such bill or demand is served on

respondent No.1, therefore, there is no question as default in paying

the same, therefore, it cannot be said that, respondent No.1 is a

defaulter for payment of tax. Therefore, he submits that, the present

petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.

The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, invited my attention

to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Chandkhan Vs. W.N. Ground, Returning Officer, Malegaon, Taluq,

Washim, District Akola and others; reported in [1972 Mh.L.J. 792]

and in particular para No. 9 thereof, and he submits that, unless there

is a specific notice and demand, asking the member to deposit the

amount of tax or fee, the provisions of section 14 (h) of the said Act,

cannot be invoked. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to

the judgment of this Court in the case of Suvarna Prakash Patil Vs.

Anil Hindurao Powar and others; reported in [2004 (1) Mh.L.J.] 1062

and submits that, on interpretation of section 14(h) and 16 of the said

13 3559.2013 WP

Act, this Court held that, the conditions stated in para No. 17 of the

said judgment are required to be fulfilled, when the issue of

disqualification arises. However, in the present case, nothing has

been placed on record to show that there was any demand notice and

within three months respondent No. 1 failed to deposit the tax. The

learned Counsel further placed reliance in the case of Sk. Sandu Sk.

Nathu and others Vs. Pirjade Iqbaluddin Ziauddin and others;

reported in [1985 Mh.L.J. 143] and submits that in order to incur

disqualification under section 14(h) of the said Act, the section 14(h)

is required to be read conjointly with explanation 2(ii) of the said

section. He has also invited my attention to the judgment in the case

of S. Sundaram Pillai etc. Vs. V.R. Pattbiraman; reported in AIR 1985

Supreme Court 582 (1).

12. The learned AGP appearing for the State, invited my attention

to the reasons recorded by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad

Division, Aurangabad- respondent No. 4, in the impugned judgment

and order and submits that the Writ Petition may be rejected.

13. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the

learned Counsel appeasing for the parties, with their assistance

perused the grounds in the petition, annextures thereto, impugned

14 3559.2013 WP

judgments and orders passed by the Additional Collector, Jalna-

respondent No. 3, Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division,

Aurangabad- respondent No. 4, the provisions of said Act, other

documents placed on record, and also the judgments cited supra by

the Counsel appearing for the parties.

14. Since entire case rests upon the provisions of section 14(h)

and explanation 2 (ii) of the said Act, it would be apt to reproduce

here-in-below section 14 (h) and explanation 2(ii) of the said Act :-

"Section 14 :- Disqualification [(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat continue as such, who -

                  (a to g)      ..............................
   



                  (h)    fails to pay any tax or fee due to the

Panchayat ( for Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or

fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him ; or)

(h-1 to k) ..................

Explanation 2. --- For the purpose of clause (h)

(i) a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid the amount of any tax fee due, prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of a candidates.

(ii) failure to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat by a member of an undivided Hindu family, or by a person belonging to a group or unit

15 3559.2013 WP

the members of which are by custom joint in estate or residence, shall be deemed to disqualify all

members of such undivided Hindu family or as the case may be all the members of such group or unit."

As is held by this Court in the case Suvarna Prakash

Patil (supra), when issue of disqualification arises within the meaning

of section 14(h) of the said Act, then, three conditions will have to be

established.

The said discussion is in para No. 17 of the said

judgment which reads thus :-

"It is well settled that when the issue of disqualification arises within the meaning of this provision, then, three conditions will have to be established. First, there must be a failure to pay a bill presented under section 129(1)

of this Act. Secondly, the default must have continued for a period of three months. And third, the amount

remained unpaid."

Upon reading para No. 17 from the judgment in the case of

Suvarna Prakash Patil (supra), it is abundantly clear that, there must

be a failure to pay a bill presented under section 129(1) of the said

Act. Secondly, the default must have continued for a period of three

months and thirdly, the amount remained unpaid.

15. In the present case, from the careful perusal of entire material

placed on record including the proceedings before the Additional

16 3559.2013 WP

Collector, Jalna, or Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division,

Aurangabad, there is no single document showing that, there was

demand of dues or fees from respondent No. 1, and within three

months from the date on which dues or fees was demanded,

respondent No. 1 has not paid the dues. Therefore, in absence of

specific demand, the time limit to pay tax or fee due to the panchayat,

is not possible to be reckoned. The mandate of provisions of section

14 (h) of the said Act is that, no person shall be a member of a

panchayat continue as such who fails to pay any tax or fee [due to the

panchayat or the Zilla Parished within three months from the date of

which amount of such tax or fee is demanded]. Therefore, it is crystal

clear that, in absence of fulfillment of three conditions stated here-in-

above, when issue of disqualification arises under section 14(h) read

with 16 of the said Act, it may not be possible to read only

explanation 2 to section 14 in isolation. Therefore, the explanation

2(i) (ii) as appearing in Section 14 of the said Act, will have to be read

conjointly with the provisions of section 14(1) (h) of the said Act.

16. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the Additional

Collector, Jalana has held that, respondent No. 1 is disqualified to be

continued as a member of the village panchayat, since he did not pay

17 3559.2013 WP

tax prior to the date of filling his nomination form for contesting the

village panchayat election. The Division Bench of this Court in case

of Chandkhan (supra) has considered the sections 14(h) and 129 of

the said Act, in para No. 9 and held thus :-

"The crucial question which, however, has to be considered in this case is whether by non-payment of these fees for the writs of demand issued to the three

petitioners they can be said to have failed to pay any tax or fee due as contemplated by section 14(h) of the Act,

so as to incur a disqualification with the consequence that their nomination papers were liable to be rejected. Now, on a plain reading of section 14(h) it appears to us

that the two conditions which must be satisfied before a person can be disqualified from becoming a member of a panchayat are : (i) that he must have failed to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat or the Zilla Parishaed within three months from the date on which the amount

of such tax or fee is demanded, and (ii) that a bill for the purpose is duly served on him. Unless both these

conditions are satisfied in a given case, it will not be possible to hold that a person is disqualified to be a member of a panchayat. There must be failure to pay the tax or fee which must have been demanded, and for

the purpose of demanding that tax or fee which is in arrears, a bill must be duly served on him. It is obvious that the bill which is referred to in section 14(h) is the one which is contemplated by section 129(1) of the Act. The word "bill" is not defined anywhere in the Act, but the only

reference to the bill for the purpose of demanding any tax or fee which has become due to the panchayat is to be found in section 129(1) of the Act. As contradistinguished from the bill which is contemplated by section 129(1), section 129(2) makes a reference to a writ of demand. The Legislature has clearly made a distinction between the bill which is to be initially presented and the writ of demand which is to be issued if payment of arrears of tax or fee due is not forthcoming within the period prescribed in the bill which is presented

18 3559.2013 WP

under section 129(1) of the Act. This distinction is maintained throughout the provision of section 129. Sub-

section (3) of that section also refers to the presentation of a bill under sub-section (1) and the service of a writ of demand under sub-section (2). The two words "bill" and "writ" are used in contradistinction in clauses (a), (b) and

(c) of sub-section (3). The reference to the bill

contemplated by section 14(h) has to be read in the light of the provisions of section 129, and reading the letter clause of section 14(h), it appears to us that when the Legislature used the phraseology in that clause, it had

reference only to the bill as contemplated by section 129 (1) in respect of taxes or fees under section 124 of the

Act. If the bill referred to in section 14(h) has reference only to the bill contemplated by section 129(1), then the intention of the Legislature which is apparent from the

plain meaning given to the words in section 14(h) appears to be that the disqualification for being a member of a panchayat was intended to be fastened upon only that person to whom a bill for the amount of tax or fee due from him is presented and such person

has failed to pay the tax or fee due from him within three months from the date on which the tax or fee is

demanded."

17. In the case of Sk. Sandu Sk. Nathu and others (supra), on

interpretation to section 14(h) and explanation 2(ii) of the said Act, the

Division Bench of this Court in para No. 5 has held thus :-

" 5. Section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act lays down that no person shall be a member of the panchayat or continue as such who fails to pay any tax or fee due to the panchayat or the Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him. Explanation (2) which explains this clause reads as follows :-

19 3559.2013 WP

"Explanation 2- for the purpose of clause (h) (i) a

person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid the amount of any tax or fee due, prior to the day-prescribed for the nomination of candidate.

(ii) failure to pay any tax or fee due to the

panchayat by a member of an undivided Hindu family, or by a person belonging to a group or unit, the members of which are custom joint in estate or residence shall be deemed to disqualify all

members of such undivided Hindu family or as the case may be all the members of such group or

unit."

Therefore, in order to vicariously attract the

disqualification contemplated by section 14(h) for failure of the person, who is primarily responsible to pay property taxes, the person sought to be disqualified must either be a member of undivided Hindu family or

must belong to a group or unit, members of which are by custom of joint estate or residence. Joint residence

contemplated must be by virtue of custom prevailing among the members of the group or unit to which the person belongs. Mere joint residence, however long it may be, would not attract the mischief of this provision

unless the circumstances placed on record are such that it can be inferred that joint residence was in pursuance to a custom prevailing among the members of the particular group or unit."

18. Therefore, upon careful reading of section 14(h) conjointly with

explanation 2 (i) (ii), and also the provision of sections 16 and 129 of

the said Act, it will have to be held that, in absence of any demand of

dues, the provisions of section 14(h) cannot be invoked to incur the

disqualification as contemplated under said provision read with

20 3559.2013 WP

section 16 of the said Act. The Counsel appearing for respondent

No. 1 is right in contending that the explanation 2(ii) of section 14(h)

of the said Act refers to member of an undivided Hindu family, and

would not apply to respondent No. 1 who is not from Hindu undivided

family. Even if, the case of the petitioner is considered that, the

house property bearing No. 491 is in the name of respondent No. 1,

since there is no specific demand of tax / dues and, therefore, there

is no failure to pay dues within three months from the date of such

demand, the provisions of section 14(h) would not attract in such a

case. Therefore, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in

the case of Chandkhan (supra), on interpretation of sections 14(h)

read with section 129 of the said Act, appears to be in conformity with

Legislative intent and, therefore, though the appellate authority has

not assigned the detail reasons, however, the judgment and order of

the appellate authority needs no interference. It is also observed by

the appellate authority that on perusal of the documents from the file

received from the office of the Additional Collector, Jalna, there is no

dues certificate issued by the Village Development Officer, Badnapur,

Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna. The Appellate Authority has further

observed that, the perusal of record does not show that, panchayat

dues are payable by respondent No. 1. The appellate authority being

21 3559.2013 WP

the last fact finding forum, and findings recorded are not perverse, the

same needs no interference. Therefore, in the light of the discussion

herein above, writ petition sans merit, hence rejected.

     .        Rule stands discharged.




                                       
                             ig                   [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
                           
     SDM*/ Dec.2013/chm.