Mangal Vinayak Kele vs The Collector Dhule And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 92 Bom

                                                 Writ Petition No.2497/2017
                                        1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                     WRIT PETITION NO.2497 OF 2017


 Mangal w/o Vinayak Kele (Pandav)
 Age 35 years, Occu. Household,
 R/o Arvil, Tq. and District Dhule            ...      PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1)       The Collector, Dhule,
          District Dhule.

 2)       The Tahsildar, Dhule,
          Tq. and District Dhule

 3)       The Talathi,
          Grampanchayat, Arvi,
          Tq. and District Dhule

 4)       Smt. Kadarbai Fakira Aallor,
          Age major, Occ. Household

 5)       Dilip Jaiwant Desale,
          Age major, Occ. Agri.

 6)       Sau. Surekhabai Bhagwan Devare,
          Age major, Occ. Household

 7)       Smt. Parvatabai Tukaram Bagale
          Age major, Occ. Household

 8)       Sau. Janabai Dharmaraj Garde,
          Age major, Occ. Household

 9)       Sau. Banubai Shenpadu Pawar,
          Age major, Occ. Household

 10)      Manoj Govind Salve,
          Age major, Occ. Agril.




::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 00:54:06 :::
                                                          Writ Petition No.2497/2017
                                          2



 11)      Smt. Ashabai Gulab Gore,
          Age major, Occ. Household

 12)      Sau. Yashoda Namdeo Choudhari
          Age major, Occ. Household

 13)      Rajendra Dhudku Sonawane
          Age major, Occ. Agri.

 14)      Dnyaneshwar Mahipat Gaikwad
          Age major, Occ. Agri.

          Respondents No.1 to 14
          All R/o village Arvi,
          Tq. and District Dhule              ...   RESPONDENTS

                                 .....
 Shri P.S. Dighe, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri A.P. Basarkar, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2.
 Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 14
                                 .....

                                 CORAM:       S. B. SHUKRE, J.

                                 DATED:       27th February, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Issue notice to respondents for final disposal

returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P. waives service for

respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Warma, learned counsel waives

service for respondents No.4 to 14. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the

parties.

Writ Petition No.2497/2017

2. It is seen from this Writ Petition, and as submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioner, the main ground of the

challenge to the No Confidence Motion was a question of law

relating to these petitioners, respondent No.4 Smt. Kadarbai and

respondent No.9 Smt. Banubai, arising from the provisions of

Section 10(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act,

1958 and this question, though raised before the learned

Collector, in the appeal filed before him, has not been considered

by the learned Collector, Dhule.

3. In this case, admittedly respondents No.4 and 9, who

are elected as Grampanchayat members from the reserved

category, did not submit caste validity certificates as required

under Section 10(A), within the time stipulated therein. Proviso

to this Section lays down that, any failure to produce the caste

validity certificate within the stipulated period of time, shall result

in deemed termination of the membership as well as deemed

disqualification of the concerned Member. Of course, there are

divergent views taken by the High Court on the question of

nature of this provision of law and, therefore, the effect of this

Section was required to be considered by the appellate authority,

Writ Petition No.2497/2017

in the light of the law laid down in various judgments of the High

Court. I find, from the impugned order dated 3/2/2017 that,

there is no application of mind to the question of law raised by

the petitioner. Since the Collector is the first appellate authority,

it would be appropriate that this matter is remitted back to him

for due consideration of the question of law involved in this

petition, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

4. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is

allowed. The impugned order dated 3/2/2017 is hereby quashed

and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned

Collector, Dhule for decision afresh in accordance with law on the

Grampanchayat Dispute Application No.1/2017. Parties to

appear before the learned collector, Dhule on 8th March 2017.

The learned Collector shall decide the Dispute on or before 31st

March 2017. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

5. At this juncture, it has been pointed out by learned

counsel for respondents No.4 to 14 that there is also resignation

letter submitted by the petitioner. If this is so, it is made clear

that, observations made in this order as well as pendency of the

Dispute Application before the learned Collector shall not come in

Writ Petition No.2497/2017

the way of consideration of the acceptance or otherwise of the

resignation letter, in accordance with law.

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE

fmp/wp2497.17