Bombay High Court
Smt. Mayabai Baburao Thakre And ... vs The Additional Commissioner ... on 28 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 wp.1670.16.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1670 OF 2016
Petitioners : 1] Smt. Mayabai Baburao Thakare,
Aged about 45 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Mauza Kotgal, Post Pardi,
Tah. and Distt. Gadchiroli.
2] Smt. Anusayabai Durgesh Meshram,
ig Aged about 40 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Mauza Kotgal, Post : Pardi,
Tah. and Distt. Gadchiroli.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] The Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2] The Additional Collector, Gadchiroli.
3] Shri Purushottam Patruji Barshinge,
Aged about 41 years, Occu : Business
(Ex-Grampanchayat),
R/o Mauza Kotgal, Post Pardi,
Tah. and Distt. Gadchiroli.
4] Shri Jagannath Bhagirath Meshram,
Aged about 68 years, Occu : Retired Teacher,
R/o Mouza Kotgal, Post Pardi,
Tah. and Distt. Gadchiroli.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri R.L. Alone, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A.M. Balpande, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : APRIL 28, 2016.
2 wp.1670.16.jud
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
01) Notices issued to respondent nos.1 and 2, it appears, have not
been served so far. However, the fact that this petition can be disposed of
merely examining the record of the petition with the assistance of the
learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government
Pleader, the notices issued to respondent nos.3 and 4 are recalled and their
presence is dispensed with.
02) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties present before the Court.
03) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
legality and correctness of the order dated 02/07/2015 thereby
disqualifying the petitioners from being the members of Gram Panchayat,
Kotgal.
04) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the
petitioners have been disqualified without taking into consideration the fact
3 wp.1670.16.jud
that they were not interested directly or indirectly in the works carried out
by the order of Gram Panchayat.
05) Upon going through the impugned order with the assistance of
the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2, I find that there is no
merit in the said argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Both
the petitioners have been disqualified after holding a detailed enquiry by
respondent no.2 and it has been found that the works were assigned by the
order of Gram Panchayat to those persons, who were close relatives of the
petitioners and, therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners have been
rightly disqualified by invoking the provisions of Section 14(1)(g) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. There is no merit in this petition and,
therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed.
06) The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
JUDGE
*sdw
