Bombay High Court
Smt. Rukhmina W/O Atmaram Gavai vs Div. Commissioner Amravati ... on 24 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp4393.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4393 OF 2014
Smt. Rukhmina w/o Atmaram Gavai,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation - Household,
R/o Chandanpur, Tq. Chikhali,
District - Buldhana. ig .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2) District Collector,
Buldhana.
3) Secretary,
Gram-Panchayat, Chandanpur,
Tahsil - Chikhli, District - Buldhana.
4) The Tahsildar,
Tahsil - Chikhli, District - Buldhana. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri A.D. Sonak, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1,2 and 4,
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 24
th JUNE, 2016
2 wp4393.14
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri
A.D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 2
and 4 and Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner was elected as Member of Gram-Panchayat
on 22-10-2012. An order dated 01-08-2013 was issued by the
Collector, Buldhana disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as
member of Gram-Panchayat and from contesting the elections further
for a period of five years on the ground that the petitioner has not
submitted the account of election expenditure within stipulated time as
per Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional
Commissioner contending that she had submitted the account of
election expenses within time. The learned Divisional Commissioner
has dismissed the appeal recording that according to the petitioner, the
accounts were submitted to the Secretary of Gram-Panchayat who is
3 wp4393.14
not competent authority in the matter.
The petitioner being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this
petition.
5. In the memorandum of appeal, in paragraph No.4, the
petitioner has stated that the account of election expenditure was
submitted to the office of Collector within time, however, the name of
the petitioner was shown in the list of defaulters who had not
submitted the accounts. In paragraph No.6 of the memorandum of
appeal, the petitioner has stated that the account of election
expenditure was submitted to the office of the respondent No.2 i.e.
Secretary, Gram-Panchayat, Chandanpur.
6. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has not been able to
substantiate that the account of election expenses was submitted
within time, in view of the variance in the pleadings in paragraph
Nos.4 and 6 of the memorandum of appeal, the contention of the
petitioner cannot be accepted. The orders passed by the sub-ordinate
authorities disqualifying the petitioner are proper and cannot be
faulted with.
4 wp4393.14
7. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties
to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
adgokar
