Shubhangi Suraj Sakhare vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3922 Bom

        IRESH SIDDHARAM    Digitally signed by IRESH
                           SIDDHARAM MASHAL
        MASHAL             Date: 2023.04.19 18:28:55 +0530




                                                                1/4                 914.4825.23 wp.doc




Iresh
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 4825 OF 2023


                 Shubhangi Suraj Sakhare                                             ....Petitioner

                           V/s.

                 The State of Maharashtra Thr. The                                   ....Respondents
                 Principal Secretary and Ors

                 Ms. Gayatri Singh Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Jay S. Patil Adocate for
                 the Petitioner
                 Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. Govt. Pleader a/w Mrs. M. S. Bane, AGP for
                 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State.
                 Mr. Chaitanya Nikte a/w Ms. Sneha Bhange Advocate for Respondent
                 No. 4
                 Mr. Akshay Pansare i/b Mr. S. B. Shetye Advocate for Respondent No.
                 6


                                                                  CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &
                                                                          GAURI GODSE, JJ.

DATED : 19th APRIL 2023

P.C. :-

1. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court is

whether the Petitioner could be disqualified as a member of

Respondent No. 5 Grampanchayat or not on the ground that the

Petitioner had alleged to have committed default in making payment

of tax dues within three months from the date on which the amount

of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the said purpose is duly

2/4 914.4825.23 wp.doc

served on him as contemplated under Section 14 (1)(h) of The

Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act ('said Act') or not.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that she has not been served

with any tax invoice. The Petitioner before filing the nomination

form made an enquiry with the Grampanchayat whether there are

tax dues pending in respect of the property of the Petitioner and she

was informed that certain amount was due and payable by the

Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the demand was raised upon

the Petitioner for the first time in November 2020. According to the

Petitioner, though the demand was prepared by the Grampanchayat

on 5th November 2020, same was not served upon the Petitioner.

However, since the Petitioner wanted to contest the election and file

nomination form, the Petitioner paid the tax on the last date of filing

nomination form.

3. The learned counsel for the Complainant is unable to produce

any proof of service of demand of tax invoice or a demand notice as

contemplated in Section 129(2) of the said Act. In our view, Section

14(1)(h) of the said Act cannot be read in isolation and has to be

read with Section 129(2) of the said Act. Since the Complainant

prima facie failed to produce service of tax demand upon the

Petitioner by the Grampanchayat, the Collector had rightly rejected

3/4 914.4825.23 wp.doc

the Complaint filed by Respondent No. 4.

4. Perusal of the record further prima facie indicates that the

learned Divisional Commissioner allowed the Appeal filed by the

Complainant basically on the ground that upon inquiry conducted by

the Block Development Officer ('BDO'), tax demands have been

alleged to have been served. Perusal of the report of BDO prima facie

indicates that the inquiry was made in respect of the subsequent

orders and not in respect of the issues which were subject matter of

the Complaint filed by the Respondent No. 4. In our prima facie

view, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is ex-facie

perverse and contrary to the documents produced by the Petitioner

on record.

5. Rule. Learned AGP waives for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Learned

counsel Mr. Nikte, waives service for Respondent No. 4. Learned

counsel Mr. Pansare, waives service for Respondent No. 6. Rule be

issued upon Respondent No. 5. Hearing is expedited.

6. Affidavit-in-Reply to be filed by the Respondents who are

already served, within a period of three weeks. Affidavit-in-Reply

shall be filed by Respondent No. 5 within a period of three weeks

from the date of service of Rule. Affidavit-in-Rejoinder, if any, to be

filed within one week thereafter.

4/4 914.4825.23 wp.doc

7. Rule on prayer clause (c) is made returnable on 26 th June

2023. Till next date, by way of ad-interim relief, the implementation,

execution and operation of the impugned Judgment and Order dated

9th February 2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 Additional

Commissioner, Pune Division shall remain stayed.

8. It is made clear that Petitioner would be allowed to cast his

vote in the election for the post of Sarpanch which is proposed to be

held tomorrow. It is also made clear that order passed by this Court

is subject to final orders passed by this Court at the time of final

hearing of this Petition.

9. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

 (GAURI GODSE, J.)                               (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)