Dismissed

Mrs. Nilam Shivaji Powar v. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2013WP/1953/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing his disqualification appeal regarding the post of Police Patil. The Court rejected the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal correctly assessed the evidence regarding the disputed ration card and resignation, and that no substantial ground of error warranted High Court interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in limine; interim order vacated; respondent appointed as Police Patil within 4 weeks.

Mrs. Nilam Shivaji Powar Vs the Sub-Divisional… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP-1953-2013 Wed,13March,2013

¶2

¶3

Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1953 OF 2013

Nilam Shivaji Pawar

....Petitioner

vs.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

¶11

Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Datta Pawar i/by. M/s. Onash Legus, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Prashant Darandale, Addl. G.P. for respondents no.1 and 2.

¶13

Ms. Swati Manchekar, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶14

CORAM :- V.M. KANADE, &

¶15

SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.

¶16

DATED :- 13^th March, 2013.

¶17

P.C. :-

¶18

1). Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶19

2). By this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment

¶20

and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (M.A.T.) in

¶21

2 * WP-1953-2013 Wed,13March,2013

¶22

Rane

¶23

original application filed by the respondent vide O.A. No. 752 of 2012. By the said judgment and order dated 18^th February, 2013 the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal set aside the order passed by respondent no.1, Sub-Divisional Officer disqualifying the petitioner herein

¶24

for the post of Police-Patil of Village-Kaulage and directed that respondent no.1 should take action to appoint respondent no.3 herein as Police Patil. The contention of Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that, under the terms and conditions under which a person was entitled to appear for written examination for the post of Police Patil, was that, he should have a proof of residence and for that purpose, should produce a ration-card

¶25

or any other document in support of proof of residence. It is contended that the ration-card which was produced by respondent no.3, was a fabricated document and the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional

¶26

Officer, after making a summary enquiry, as contemplated under the provisions of the said Act, held that the said document is fabricated and some entries had been made in the ration card. He submitted

¶27

that, on the basis of the said summary enquiry, the Tahsildar and the

¶28

Sub-Divisional Officer had held that it amounted to a disqualification

¶29

3 * WP-1953-2013 Wed,13March,2013

¶30

Rane

¶31

and thereafter set aside the appointment of respondent no.3 as Police Patil. Against the said order, respondent no.3 preferred an original application before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which allowed the O.A. It is submitted that the reasoning given by M.A.T. is erroneous and unsustainable in law. In support of the said submissions, Mr. Khandeparkar, has invited our attention to the provisions of the said Act and more particularly, the summary enquiry, which is contemplated under the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that, secondly an objection was also raised regarding the procedure which has to be followed in respect of resignation from the post of Sarpanch. It was contended that respondent no.3 was a Sarpanch prior to the election and under the provisions of the said Act, she had to resign from the said post and obtain signature of two independent witnesses. It was contended that, one of the witnesses had stated that the signature on the said document was not her signature and therefore it was contended that respondent no.3 had not resigned and as such was not eligible to contest the said election.

¶32

3). After hearing learned Counsel for both sides, in our view, no case is made out for interfering with the judgment and order passed by

¶33

4 * WP-1953-2013 Wed,13March,2013

¶34

Rane

¶35

the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It is to be noted that, one of

¶36

the condition for being eligible to appear for the written examination

¶37

for the post of Police Patil, was that some proof of residence had to be produced and it could be either a ration-card or any other document. Accordingly, respondent no.3 had produced the ration-card. An allegation was made that the said ration-card was tampered. It is to

¶38

be noted that, neither the Tahsildar nor the Sub-Divisional Officer has come to a conclusion that, she was the author of the said fabrication. In any event, it is not challenged that respondent no.3 was not a resident of the said village, since admittedly she was a Sarpanch of the said village. That being the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not eligible to appear for the written examination of Police Patil. So far as condition no.5 is concerned, namely that the candidate should not have held to be guilty for the offence punishable under the Act is concerned, no such finding has been given by the Competent Court and she has not been held to be guilty for having fabricated the said document. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, therefore, in

¶39

our view has correctly assessed the material on record and has given plausible reasons for the purpose of rejecting the contention of the

¶40

5 * WP-1953-2013 Wed,13March,2013

¶41

Rane

¶42

petitioner herein. So far as question of resignation is concerned, the said issue has also been properly dealt with by MAT. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order while exercising our writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of - Surya Dev Rai, Appellant vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors, Respondents [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675] has very briefly laid down the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in paragraph-12 it has observed as under :

¶43

“12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would not, therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself the role of an Appellate Court and step into re-appreciating or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the inferior court.”

¶44

4). In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and in

¶45

view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this is not a fit

¶46

WP-1953-2013 Wed,13March,2013

¶47

Rane

¶48

¶49

case for interfering with the order passed by M.A.T. The writ petition therefore is dismissed in limine. The interim order passed by this Court is vacated. The Sub-Divisional Officer-respondent no.1 herein shall appoint respondent no.3 as Police Patil within a period of 4 weeks from today.

¶50

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J) (V.M. KANADE, J)

Mrs. Nilam Shivaji Powar v. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Nilam Shivaji Powar v. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj 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

Akhil Bharatiya Safai Majdoor Congress, through President, Satish v. Lalbige Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mrs. Sandhya Manohar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Prot. and or

Maharashtra S. T. Workers Congress (Intuc) Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thorugh Principal Secretary, Home Dept (Transport) and Ors.

Mrs. Nilam Shivaji Powar Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj and Ors.

The Chief Gen.Manager, Mtnl and Anr. Vs D.C.Das

Mr. Dinar Dilip Pange Vs Mrs. Harshala Dinar Pange