Bombay High Court
Mrs. Salubai Jagannath Narke vs Shri Gulab Babanrao Satpute And ... on 21 April, 2016
Bench: R.M. Savant
(908)-WP-524-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.524 OF 2016
Mrs. Salubai Jagannath Narke ]
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture, ]
Residing at : Village Kasari, ]
Taluka: Shirur, Dist: Pune ].. Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri. Gulab Babanrao Satpute, ]
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture,
ig ]
2. Sau. Rajashri Ashok Phulaware, ]
Age: Adult, Occ: Housewife, ]
Both residing at Kasari, Taluka Shirur, ]
District Pune. ]
3. Additional Commissioner, Pune. ]
4. State of Maharashtra ].. Respondents
Mr. S. S. Kulkarni i/by Mr. Chaitanya Nikte, for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. B. Tapkir, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 21st APRIL 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties
made returnable forthwith and heard.
BGP. 1 of 6
(908)-WP-524-16.doc
2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order
dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division,
Pune, by which order, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be
dismissed and resultantly, the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by the
Additional Collector, Pune came to be confirmed.
3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary
details having regard to the nature of the directions to be issued. Suffice it
would be to state that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 initiated proceedings
for disqualification of the Petitioner under Section 14(1)(h) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The said provision reads thus :-
"14. Disqualifications.- [(1) No person shall be a member
of a Panchayat continue as such, who -
(a).........................
(b).........................
(c).........................
(d)........................
(e)........................
(f)........................
(g)........................
(h) 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; or]"
Hence, the said provision postulates the disqualification of a member of a
BGP. 2 of 6
(908)-WP-524-16.doc
Panchayat and continue as such if fails to pay any tax or fee due to the
Panchayat 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 upon
him. In the instant case, it is required to be noted that the notice of
demand is dated 01.11.2014. However, it is the case of the Petitioner that
the said notice of demand was not served upon the husband of the
Petitioner and that in the bill register interpolation has been made
between numbers 1 and 3 and the name of the husband of the Petitioner
has been included and his signature is shown against his name as having
received the said notice of demand dated 01.11.2014. It is also the case of
the Petitioner that the original No.2 in the bill register has been changed
to 3 and original No.3 has been changed to 4 in the said bill register. It is
required to be noted that the husband of the Petitioner owns the Gram
Panchayat property bearing Nos.197, 775 and 776, in respect of which he
has to pay taxes to the Gram Panchayat. It seems that the Petitioner's
husband on acquiring knowledge that the amount was required to be paid
by him in respect of the said properties, paid the amount of the property
tax on 26.03.2015.
4. It is required to be noted that in the proceedings filed by the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein the Petitioner has specifically taken a
stand that the signature appearing against the name of her husband in the
BGP. 3 of 6
(908)-WP-524-16.doc
bill register is not that of her husband, but his signature has been forged
by somebody by signing like him. The proceedings commenced before the
Additional Collector, Pune. The Additional Collector, Pune has considered
the report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune,
who in turn has based his report, on the report of the Block Development
Officer, Shirur. The Additional Collector, Pune on the basis of the notice of
demand dated 01.11.2014 having been received by the husband of the
Petitioner on 03.11.2014 and the payment being made on 26.03.2015,
held that the Petitioner has fallen foul of the said Section 14(1)(h) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and therefore was required to be
disqualified under the said provision. Pertinently, the Additional Collector,
Pune has not considered the case of the Petitioner of interpolation of the
name of the husband of the Petitioner and signature of the husband of the
Petitioner being forged in the said bill register.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional
Collector, Pune dated 27.08.2015, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the
Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The Additional
Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune for the self same reason namely that
the notice is dated 01.11.2014 served on the husband of the Petitioner on
03.11.2014 and the payment being made on 26.03.2015 observed that the
said payment was made after about 51 days of the period of three months
BGP. 4 of 6
(908)-WP-524-16.doc
getting over and therefore there is non-compliance of Section 14(1)(h) of
the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and therefore Petitioner is
required to be disqualified under the said provision. The Additional
Commissioner has also not considered the case of the Petitioner that the
name of the husband of the Petitioner has been interpolated and the
signature of the husband of the Petitioner is forged. The said fact assumes
significance in the light of the wording of the Section 14(1)(h) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act having regard to the fact that the
demand is required to be made and duly served upon the person.
6. Both the Authorities below therefore have not gone into the
said aspect as to whether the signature appearing on the bill register
genuinely is that of the husband of the Petitioner or whether the name of
the husband of the Petitioner against his signature has been forged in the
background circumstance of the fact that it is the Petitioner who was in
the forefront in moving no confidence motion against the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2. Since the said issue of whether the notice of demand has
been served upon the husband of the Petitioner is the defining aspect in
the instant case and since the said aspect has not been dealt with by the
Authorities below, the orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as
the Additional Commissioner would have to be quashed and set aside and
the matter would have to be remanded back to the Additional Collector,
BGP. 5 of 6
(908)-WP-524-16.doc
Pune for a de-novo consideration of the said proceedings. The Additional
Collector, Pune would consider the proceedings for disqualification of the
Petitioner in terms of the observations made hereinabove. The parties to
appear before the Additional Collector, Pune on 04.05.2016. The
Additional Collector, Pune to thereafter decide the proceedings
expeditiously and latest by 30.06.2016. Needless to state that contentions
of the parties on all points are kept open for being urged before the
Additional Collector, Pune. The Additional Collector, Pune to decide the
proceedings on their own merits and in accordance with law. The Petition
is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute with
parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition.
[R.M. SAVANT, J]
BGP. 6 of 6
