Allowed

Latabai Ramprasad Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2011WP/691/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging disqualification under The Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The Court quashed the impugned order, holding that mere withdrawal of funds without proof of share or interest in work fails to establish disqualification under Section 14(1)(g).

What did the court decide?

Impugned order disqualifying petitioner was quashed and set aside. Caveator directed to pursue separate remedies.

Latabai Ramprasad Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.: 691 OF 2011

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶5

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.: 691 OF 2011

¶7

***

¶8

1.Heard Finally, Advocate Mr. S. B.

¶9

Bhapkar with Advocate Mr. Osmanpurkar for
Petitioner, Mr. K. B. Jadhav for Respondent
NO.3, learned A.G.P. Mr. D. R. Korde for

¶10

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. B. Ghatol
Patil for person who has filed caveat but who
is not made party to the petition.

¶11

2.Mr.Bhapkarpointsoutthat

¶12

disqualification of petitioner is under

¶13

section 14 (1) (g) of The Bombay Village
Panchayats Act, 1958 which necessitates a

¶14

conclusion that she had any share or interest

¶15

either directly or indirectly in the work

¶16

done as per orders of Gram Panchayat. He has

¶17

invited attention to application for
disqualification as filed by respondent Nos.4

¶18

to 8 to show that except for vaguely alleging
financial gain nothing more has been pleaded

¶19

or pointed out. Neither Additional Collector

¶20

¶21

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.: 691 OF 2011

¶24

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶25

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶26

nor Additional Commissioner has found that
petitioner secured any wrongful gain in the
process. According to the story of
petitioner, that amount was to be paid to
labour who completed the work as per Central
Government scheme and as Respondent No.3 was
having additional charge of some other
village, the amount was required to be
withdrawn by petitioner herself ought to have
been accepted. He points out that there is
no complaint by any labour of short payment
or non-payment.

¶27

3.Learned counsel appearing for Respondent
NO.3 states that he has pointed out correct
position even to lower authorities and
according to him petitioner did not have any
share or interest in the work.
4.Learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and
2 as also Advocate Mr. Patil for caveator are

¶28

supporting the impugned orders. According to
Advocate Mr. Patil Respondent Nos.4 to 8 who

¶29

¶30

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO.: 691 OF 2011

¶33

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶34

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶35

filed complaint before Collector have now
colluded with the petitioner and, therefore,
have chosen not to appear. He states that
the caveator, therefore, ought to have been
heard by Collector or in any case by
Additional Commissioner. He also states that
caveator filed independent complaint pointing
out irregularities before Collector but no
opportunity of hearing was given and that
complaint has not been considered so far.
According to him, the complaint looked into
by Collector itself in paragraph Nos.4 and 5
(A) show the interest of petitioner in the
work done.

¶36

5.Learned A.G.P. also relies upon very
same paragraphs to show that disqualification
under section 14 (1) (g) is correctly
recorded by the authorities.

¶37

6.The provisions of law in this respect
are very clear. The petitioner must be
shown to have directly or indirectly any

¶38

¶39

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO.: 691 OF 2011

¶42

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶43

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶44

share or interest in any work done by order

¶45

of Panchayat or any contract with/ by or on
behalf of Panchayat. The pleadings in
complaint looked into by Collector do not
show any such share or interest. Only
because amount of cheque was withdrawn by
Petitioner that by itself is not sufficient
to infer such share or interest. Something
more is required and there is no pleading or
no evidence about that material ingredient.

¶46

7.The Collector as also Additional
Commissioner have found that the alleged
relationship of petitioner with Respondent
No.3 has not been established. The question
of such share or interest is considered by
this Court in the judgment in the case of
"Jyotitai Vikas Gawande V/s Additional
Commissioner and others" reported in 2009 (5)
Mh.L.J. 486.

¶47

8.The Additional Commissioner in appeal
filed by the present Petitioner, found that

¶48

¶49

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶51

WRIT PETITION NO.: 691 OF 2011

¶52

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶53

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶54

withdrawal of amount by petitioner herself

¶55

creates suspicion. He has also recorded that
though this withdrawal is not sufficient to
attract disqualification as it is not a
factor indicating direct interest, he has
found such withdrawal improper and amounting
to financial irregularity. When there are no
complaints by any labour about short payment
or non-payment, why and how withdrawal by
Sarpanchitselfconstitutesfinancial
irregularity has not been clarified. I,
therefore, find the issue is covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of
"Jyotitai Vikas Gawande V/s Additional
Commissioner and others" (Supra).

¶56

9.Impugned order is not sustainable. Same
is quashed and set aside.

¶57

10.The caveator has not been shown as party
before this Court. His complaint is not
looked into by the Collector. Caveator,
therefore, is free to take recourse to such

¶58

¶59

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶60

WRIT PETITION NO.: 691 OF 2011

¶61

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders.

¶62

remedies as are open to him in the matter in
accordance with law. Petition is, thus,
allowed. No costs.

¶63

11.In view of final disposal of the writ
petition itself nothing further survives in
Civil Application NO.2493 of 2011 and as such
the same also stands disposed of.

¶64

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:08/03/2011.
ans/691

Latabai Ramprasad Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latabai Ramprasad Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namdeo Ramchandra Kadu Patil Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Sfs Education Societys St Xaviers High School Aurangabad through Fr Walter Daigo Gonsalvis Vs Benjamin Joy

Ramrao Dagdu Gavande Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Subhadrabai Muralidhar Karale and Anr. Vs Asaram Raghunath Berad and Anr.

Ravindra Jagannath Bari Vs Ramesh Sitaram Bahate L.Rs. Shalini Ramesh Barhate and Ors.

Govardhan Sadashiv Choudhari and Ors. Vs Vishnu Bajrang Ubale through Gpa Trimbak Bajrang Ubale