Bombay High Court
Pradip Kumar S/O Premdas Meshram vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur ... on 25 October, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp.4981.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 4981/2016
Pradip Kumar s/o Premdas Meshram
a/a 53 years occu: Member of Panchayat Samiti
R/o Bhiwapur, Post : Chikli
Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ...PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) Divisional Commissioner
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2) Khadaksingh s/o Saduji Jagne
a/a 43 years. Occu: Agril.
R/o Khamari Po: Chikli
Tah. Tirora, Dist Gondia. ..RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. A.A.Sambhare, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. J.Y.Ghurde, A.G.P .for respondent no. 1
Mr. I.N. Choudhari, Adv. for respondent No.2
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED : 25th October, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Considering the short issue involved, the learned counsel for the
parties have been heard by issuing Rule and making the same returnable
forthwith.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2016
passed by the Divisional Commissioner disqualifying the petitioner under
wp.4981.16
provisions of Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner by Shri A.A.Sambharay, his learned counsel, that the proceedings
were heard by the Additional Commissioner(Administration),while the order
of disqualification was passed by the Divisional Commissioner. He has referred
to ground (E) in the Writ Petition as well as the Roznama of the said
proceedings. He submits that on 22.7.2016 the counsel for the petitioner was
heard by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and thereafter on the
next date, written notes of arguments were placed on record. He therefore.
Submits that the Authority which has heard the arguments has not passed
the impugned order.
3. These submissions are opposed by Shri J.Y. Ghurde, the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Shri I.N. Choudhary,
learned counsel for respondent no.2. It is submitted that merely because both
the said Authorities had signed the Roznama on 22.7.2016 and 5.8.2016, the
same does not indicate that the arguments were heard by one Authority and
the matter was decided by the other Authority.
4. Perusal of the Roznama indicates that on 22.7.2016 oral
arguments were advanced by the petitioner and thereafter on 5.8.2016
written notes of arguments came to be placed on record. On behalf of the
respondent no.2 his counsel was present on 27.6.2016. The Roznama
indicates that the Divisional Commissioner as well as the Additional
wp.4981.16
Commissioner (Administration) have signed the same. If only the Divisional
Commissioner was empowered to hear the proceedings, there was no reason
for the Additional Commissioner (Administration) to sign the same. This
aspect supports the stand of the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid facts and Ground (E) raised in the
Writ Petition, interests of justice would be served if the respondent no.1, who
is the concerned Authority himself hears the proceedings and passes an
order thereon. On that count, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 22.8.2016 is set aside.
The proceedings are remanded to th respondent no.1 for deciding the same
afresh after giving due opportunity to the parties. For said purpose, the parties
shall appear through their counsel before the respondent no.1 on 16th
November, 2016. The respondent no.1 shall decide the proceedings within a
period of one month from the said date. It is made clear that this Court has
not examined the merits of the reasons assigned in the impugned order and
the proceedings shall be decided on its own merit and in accordance with
law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
sahare
