Bombay High Court
Smt. Alkabai Parmeshwar Pund vs Additional Collector, Yavatmal ... on 26 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 judg. wp 237.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.237 of 2016.
Smt. Alkabai Parmeshwar Pund,
aged about 51 years, Occ.-Agriculture,
Resident of Village Lohi, Taluka Darwha,
District Yavatmal. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] Additional Collector, Yavatmal,
2] Nitin Gajanan Mahalle,
aged about 27 years, Occ.-Agriculture,
Village Lohi, Taluka Darwha, District Yavatmal,
3] Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Lohi,
Taluka Darwha, District Yavatmal. .... Respondents.
Shri S.V. Bhutada, Adv for petitioner.
Shri M.P. Kariya and Shri Y.B. Mandpe, Advs for resp.
no.2/Caveator.
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for resp.no.1.
Coram : S.B. Shukre, J.
th
Dated : 26
April, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
2 judg. wp 237.16.odt
2] An objection has been taken by learned Counsel for
respondent no.2 as regards the maintainability of this Writ Petition
contending that under Section 39(3) of the Bombay Village
Panchayats Act, 1958, an efficatious remedy has been provided
and in the nature of appeal before the Hon'ble Minister. I would
have accepted the contention, had there been no directions issued
by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. In the Writ Petition
No.6789 of 2014 filed earlier challenging the order of
disqualification dated 31-10-2014 passed by the then Additional
Collector, Yavatmal, the order of disqualification was quashed and
set aside by this Court by judgment rendered on 05-08-2015 and
the case was remanded back to the learned Additional Collector
Yavatmal for considering it afresh in accordance with law. It was
also specifically directed by this Court that the respondent no.1
shall supply the report dated 22-01-2014 and also other material
available and relied upon by him to the petitioner. Now, therefore,
it would have been seen that as to whether or not this order passed
on 05-08-2015 has been complied with by the respondent no.1 and
it is seen that it has not been. Therefore, the objection taken as
regards the maintainability of the petition in view of the provisions
of Section 39(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, would
have to be rejected and is rejected.
3 judg. wp 237.16.odt
3] Upon perusal of the order dated 19-12-2015, which has been
impugned and which has been passed after the remand of the case
by respondent no.1, I find that the respondent no.1 has again
committed the same mistake as he did earlier. In spite of the
specific directions given by this Court, the respondent no.1 has not
supplied the other material relied upon by him for passing the
impugned order. The other material relied upon by the respondent
no.1, as seen from the impugned order, is the report by the
Secretary whom the respondent no.1 has termed as 'Kendra
Pramukh' which specifically states that no Gram Sahba was held
on 26-01-2014. The copy of this report of 'Kendra Pramukh' has
not been furnished to the petitioner. It is obvious that the order
has been passed in breach of the directions of this Court dated
05-08-2015. Such an order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.
4] In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the respondent no.1 for its fresh consideration
in accordance with law. The respondent no.1 is directed to furnish
the copies of all the reports and all the material that would be
relied upon by him or considered by him before deciding the
matter in accordance with law. The respondent no.1 shall decide
the matter within one month from the date of appearance of the
4 judg. wp 237.16.odt
parties. The parties to appear before the respondent no.1 on
05-05-2016 at 11.00 am.
5] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
