Smt. Prabhatai Vijay Dhore vs State Of Mah. Thru. The Secty. & 3 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4473 Bom

   lpa326.08                                                                   1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

              LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.  326  OF  2008
                                 IN
                  WRIT  PETITION NO.  369  OF  2008


  Smt. Prabhatai w/o Vijay Dhore,
  aged ....... years, occupation -
  Member, Gram Panchayat, 
  Mohadi, Tq. Mouda, District -
  Nagpur.                                     ...   APPELLANT

                    Versus

  1. State of Maharashtra
     thr. its Secretary for Revenue
     and Forest Department, 
     Mantralaya, Mumbai.

  2. Divisional Commissioner,
     Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

  3. Additional Collector, Nagpur.

  4. Dinkar Punaji Ghatole,
     Aged ...... years, occupation -
     Member, Gram Panchayat,
     Mohadi, Tqh. Mouda, 
     District - Nagpur.                       ...   RESPONDENTS


  Ms. R.V. Kalia, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
                    .....

                               CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                          ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.

JULY 13, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Heard Ms. Kalia, learned AGP counsel for

respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. The application was moved by Respondent No. 4 -

Dinkar Punaji Ghatole on 28.08.2006 seeking declaration that

the present appellant is disqualified under Section 14(h) of the

Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, to continue as Ward

Member. This application was rejected by the Additional

Collector on 23.05.2007 and the Appellate Authority viz., the

Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal of Respondent No.

4 on 30.11.2007. The appellant - disqualified candidate then

approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 369 of 2008. Her

writ petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter, she has

preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. It appears that this Court on 16.10.2008 granted

status quo in the matter and appeal ultimately came to be

admitted on 17.11.2008. Normally, tenure of elected Ward

Member is five years and it expired sometimes in August 2011.

The period of five more years thereafter has also expired.

4. In this situation, we find that after disqualification

of the appellant, her tenure has expired and tenure of person

elected in fresh election may have also expired. We, therefore,

dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal as infructuous. No

order as to costs.

           JUDGE                                                   JUDGE
                                            ******

  *GS.