Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 4364 Bom
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2016
1 jg.wp5824.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5824 OF 2015
Sandip s/o Pandurang Gawande
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. : Dapura, (Majlapur),
Tq. and District Akola. ... Petitioner
// VERSUS //
(1) The Collector, Akola.
(2) Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
(3) Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
Dapura, (Majlapur),
Tq. and District Akola. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. V. Sohoni, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri A. M. Tirukh, Advocate for the respondent no. 3
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 2-8-2016.
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10-3-2014 passed by
the respondent no. 2 in the appeal filed under Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short 'the said Act'). By the impugned order,
the aforesaid appeal has been dismissed.
3. The petitioner contested the elections for the post of Member of the
2 jg.wp5824.15.odt
respondent no. 3, Gram Panchayat. He was declared elected on 10-8-2010.
According to the petitioner, the accounts of the election expenses were submitted
on 22-11-2010. However, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on
account of non-submission of election expenses. The Collector by order dated
13-2-2013 held the petitioner to be disqualified under the provisions of Section
14B of the said Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional
Commissioner and by the impugned order, the said appeal had been dismissed.
4.
Shri Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had submitted election expenses on 22-11-2010. The subsequent
notice dated 1-6-2011 issued by the office of the Collector was never received
by the petitioner and hence the petitioner would not contest the proceedings
before the Collector. The ground in this regard was specifically raised in the
appeal filed by the petitioner but even the appellate authority failed to take the
same into consideration. Merely, by accepting the report dated 23-4-2013, the
order of disqualification had been maintained. It was, therefore, submitted that
in absence of due notice, the order of disqualification could not have been
passed.
5. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order. He relied upon the
report dated 23-4-2013 submitted by the Collector and, therefore, urged that as
the accounts were not submitted, the order of disqualification was justified.
6. Shri Tirukh, learned counsel appeared for the respondent no. 3.
3 jg.wp5824.15.odt
7. Perusal of the order dated 13-2-2013 indicates that the Collector
proceeded to disqualify the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not
responded to the notice dated 1-6-2011. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, a
specific ground in that regard was raised. There is no consideration whatsoever
of the aforesaid ground by the Divisional Commissioner. The provisions of
Section 14B of the said Act contemplate grant of reasonable opportunity to the
concerned party before any order of disqualification is passed. In the present
case, when a specific ground regarding non-service of notice dated 1-6-2011 was
raised, a finding in that regard ought to have been recorded. This is all the more
necessary in view of the acknowledgment dated 22-11-2010 placed on record by
the petitioner indicating submission of election accounts.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are liable to be
quashed and set aside. The proceedings deserve to be adjudicated afresh.
Hence, the following order :
(i) The order dated 13-2-2013 passed by the Collector as well as the order dated 10-3-2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Collector, Akola shall decide the proceedings afresh in the light of the
observations made in the aforesaid judgment. The proceedings shall be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
wasnik
4 jg.wp5824.15.odt
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original singed Judgment."
Uploaded by : A. Y. Wasnik, P.A. Uploaded on : 4-8-2016
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!