Partly allowed

Bhagwat Sarjerao Thombare and Ors. v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2011WP/888/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Divisional Commissioner dissolving a Village Panchayat under Section 145(1A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The court held that the Commissioner failed to provide effective hearing opportunities and ignored relevant legal norms. The order was quashed, and proceedings were restored for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dissolving the Village Panchayat is quashed. Proceedings are restored for fresh decision after affording opportunity for reply and hearing.

Bhagwat Sarjerao Thombare and Ors. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 888 OF 2011

¶4

Bhagwat s/o. Sarjerao Thombare, Aged : 29 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶5

Santosh s/o. Shivram Waghchaure, Aged : 33 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶6

Sow. Nandabai Rangnath Waghchaure, Aged : 38 years, Occupation : Household.

¶7

Sow. Gayatri Shashikant Deshmukh, Aged : 35 years, Occupation : Household.

¶8

All R/o. Pimparne, Taluka : Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners.

¶9

versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶11

The Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik.

¶12

(2)

¶13

The District Collector, Ahmednagar.

¶14

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents.

¶15

Mr. Rahul A. Tambe, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶16

Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶17

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.4.

¶18

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶19

DATE : 3RD MARCH 2011

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶21

1. Heard Adv. Mr. Tambe, appearing for the petitioners; learned AGP Mr. Korde, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mr. Shelke, appearing for respondent no.4.

¶22

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.

¶23

(3)

¶24

3. The facts giving rise to controversy are briefly recorded in first order of this court dated 4-2-2011.

¶25

4. Adv. Mr. Tambe, appearing for the petitioners, states that without considering the relevant law on the subject, respondent no.2 has mechanically exercised powers under Section 145(1A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (For short, "1958 Act" ). He is relying upon the judgment delivered by me on 27th January 2011, in Writ Petition No. 10200/2010. According to him, the controversy stands concluded by that judgment and hence the petition should be allowed.

¶26

5. He further states that before the said respondent, the petitioners had sought time to file reply and appropriate documents. As that was orally rejected by respondent no.2, a brief application mentioning the business transacted after the alleged resignations was pointed out. The said application dated 27-12-2010 has not been looked into in right perspective and the petitioners were not given effective opportunity of advancing oral arguments.

¶27

6. Learned AGP Mr. Korde, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mr. Shelke, appearing for respondent no.4,

¶28

(4)

¶29

rely upon express language of Section 145(1A) of 1958 Act and support the impugned order.

¶30

7. The norms relevant for exercise of powers under Section 145(1A) are laid down by this court in its various judgments and I had occasion to consider the same in the judgment dated 27th January 2011 mentioned supra. It appears that on the very first date of appearance before him, respondent no.2 / Divisional Commissioner has proceeded to decide the matter. The grievance of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is, therefore, the relevant judgments having bearing on the matter could not be pointed out to respondent no.2.

¶31

8. As I find that the petitioners did not receive effective opportunity of hearing and even otherwise the ingredients necessary for ordering fresh elections are not noticed by respondent no.2, the impugned order is unsustainable.

¶32

9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed.

¶33

(i) The impugned order dated 13-1-2011, passed by respondent no.2 / Divisional Commissioner, Nasik, thereby dissolving the Village Panchayat Pimparne (Taluka : Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar), is quashed and set aside. The

¶34

(5)

¶35

proceedings are restored back to the file of respondent no.2 for giving fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording necessary opportunity to the petitioners of filing reply in detail and thereafter to argue the matter afresh.

¶36

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before respondent no.2 on 25th March 2011 and shall abide by his further instructions in the matter.

¶37

10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶38

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI )

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

bgp/wp888

Bhagwat Sarjerao Thombare and Ors. v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat Sarjerao Thombare and Ors. v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Bansidhar Doiphode and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kesharchand Bansilal Pande Vs Gopinath Ramkrishna Pawar (Died) Lrs Sushilabai and Ors.

Raosaheb Munjaji Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Kashinath Deshnmukh Vs Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Jalgaon

Rajesh Parmeshwar Rawate Vs Manisha Satish Patil and Ors.

Harun @ Raju Nabi Pinjari Vs Subhash Lotan Mansure and Ors.