Shailesh S/O Janrao Dongre vs The Collector, Akola And 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 4606 Bom

                                                                            wp5853.15.odt
                                             1




                                                                              
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                      
                            Writ Petition No. 5853 of 2015


     Shailesh son of Janrao Dongre,




                                                     
     aged 34 years,
     occupation - Agriculturist,
     resident of Dapura [Majlapur],
     Tq. & Distt. Akola.                                .....       Petitioner.
                                                                  Org. Applicant




                                          
                              ig          Versus


     1.      The Collector, Akola.
                            
     2.      Divisional Commissioner,
             Amravati Division,
             Amravati.
      


     3.      Secretary,
             Gram Panchayat,
   



             Dapura [Majlapur],
             Tq. & Distt. Akola.                      ....       Respondents.
                                                                 Org. Respdts.





                                      *****
     Mr. S. V. Sohoni, Adv., for the petitioner.
     Ms. T. Khan, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
     Mr. A.M. Tirukh, Adv., for respondent no.3.





                                           *****


                                   CORAM    :      A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                                   Date     :      10th August, 2016





                                                                        wp5853.15.odt





                                                                         
     ORAL JUDGMENT :




                                                 

01. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for

the parties.

02. 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.

03. The petitioner contested the elections for the post of

Member of the 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.

wp5853.15.odt

04. 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.

05. Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, supported the impugned order.

She 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.

06. Shri Tirukh, learned counsel appeared for the respondent

wp5853.15.odt

no. 3.

07. 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.

08. 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 :

wp5853.15.odt

[a] 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.

[b] 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

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.

Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 11th Aug., 2016 Pvt. Secretary.

-0-0-0-0-