Partly allowed

Yuvraj Pandit Dhangar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Apr 2014WP/9338/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad set aside the Minister's judgment dismissing a complaint to disqualify Gram Panchayat members. The court remitted the matter to the Divisional Commissioner for a fresh hearing, imposing restrictions on the Panchayat's expenditure powers until the final decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 30-10-2013 passed by Respondent No. 2 is set aside. The complaint dated 15-10-2012 is remitted to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik for a re-hearing.

Yuvraj Pandit Dhangar and Another Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

9338.2013 WP

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9338 OF 2013

¶5

Yuvraj Pandit Dhangar

& another

... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others ... Respondents

¶10

Mr. M.B. Sandanshiv, Advocate for petitioners Mr. V.H. Dighe , A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 Mr. Rajendra N. Chavan, Advocate holding for

¶11

Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶12

Mr. Paresh B. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 to 12

¶13

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶14

DATED : 29^th APRIL, 2014

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

This matter was heard yesterday and again today.

¶17

After the submissions of the respective sides were concluded, the following issues arose :-

¶18

a] Title/ownership of the land/plots has not been transferred, but occupancy has been transferred.

¶19

b] Ownership of the property lies with the State and no title is created by any person.

¶20

c] The allotment of occupancy was under the 'Indira Awas Yojana' aimed at granting occupancy of certain

¶21

¶22

9338.2013 WP

¶23

plots to those tribals who have been living in the said area for a long period and are homeless.

¶24

d] The B.D.O. was not legally empowered to conduct an inquiry and submit his report.

¶25

The above issues were not agitated before the Divisional Commissioner, when he dealt with the complaint filed by the petitioner for seeking disqualification of the entire members of the Gram Panchayat. The report of the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) was considered by the Divisional Commissioner. But it is now contended that the B.D.O. was not authorised to conduct an enquiry and any enquiry by the said B.D.O. is prohibited.

¶26

Respondent No. 2 has interfered with the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner and has arrived at a conclusion that none of the members of the Gram Panchayat deserves to be disqualified. By his judgment dated 30-10-2013, the appeal No. 80 filed by the appellants was allowed and the judgment dated 30-05-2013 delivered by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, has been set aside.

¶27

The impugned judgment deserves interference. Material issues germane to the proceedings as noted below paragraph 2 above, need to be considered and gone into. The scheme for the upliftment of the tribals and homeless tribals has not been properly considered by the Hon’ble Minister in the impugned judgment. It is necessary to go into the aspect as to whether only relatives of elected representatives or the

¶28

¶29

9338.2013 WP

¶30

elected representatives themselves or relatives of employees of the Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad can be held to be exclusively entitled under the scheme 'Indira Awas Yojana'

¶31

The contesting respondents, in view of the above, concede that admitting this matter and by staying the impugned judgment, would not meet the ends of justice. Instead, the complaint filed by the petitioner could be remitted back to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, for a fresh consideration.

¶32

I, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 30-10-2013, passed by the Hon’ble Minister, in order to facilitate the petitioner-complainant as well as the respondent-members of the Gram Panchaat to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, at Nashik for re-hearing.

¶33

As such the Writ Petition is partly allowed with the following directions :-

¶34

A] The impugned judgment dated 30-10-2013 passed by respondent No. 2 is set aside.

¶35

B] Complaint dated 15-10-2012 is remitted back to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik for a re-hearing.

¶36

C] All contentions of the litigating parties including the issues recorded here in above pertaining to the occupancy being transferred, authority to the B.D.O. to

¶37

¶38

9338.2013 WP

¶39

conduct an enquiry and whether the 'Indira Awas Yojana' aimed at upliftment of the home less tribals could render elected representatives or their close relatives as beneficiaries, shall be gone into by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik.

¶40

D] Litigating parties shall make their submissions on all counts and shall be thereafter, precluded from contending that any point in law or fact was not canvassed.

¶41

E] Litigating parties are at liberty to submit their written notes of arguments.

¶42

F] The effect of Sections 39(1), 55, 56, and 57 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, shall be considered in relation to the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶43

The members of the Gram Panchayat who have already been given the charge including the Sarpanch of the Gram panchayat on 25-11-2013, pursuant to the judgment of respondent No. 2, shall continue to hold charge, but with following restrictions.

¶44

i] No major decision or policy decision on behalf of the Grampanchayat shall be taken till the complaint of the petitioner is decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik.

¶45

ii] The said Gram Panchayat shall not pass any resolution which would involve a major decision on expenditure.

¶46

¶47

9338.2013 WP

¶48

iii] The Gram Panchayat shall be empowered to disburse the monthly salary of its employees.

¶49

iv] The Gram Panchayat shall be competent to take decision as regards supplying of drinking water.

¶50

v] Decisions as regards expenditure for supplying drinking water or in emergent situations, shall be taken in consultation with the B.D.O. in writing.

¶51

The litigating parties shall appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik on 26-05-2014 at 12.00 (noon) and shall thereafter, participate in the hearing as may be ordered by the Divisional Commissioner. Needless to state, separate notices for hearing need not be issued to either of the litigating parties.

¶52

With the above directions, this petition is partly allowed and disposed off. Needless to state, the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, shall look into the contentions of the respective sides and shall decide the complaint filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law and the directions issued in this order. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, shall decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three (3) months from 26-05-2014.

¶53

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶54

SDM* April-2014

Yuvraj Pandit Dhangar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Pandit Dhangar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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 Shankar Bandgar (Decd) Lrs Vs Venkat Rama Bandgar (Decd) Lrs and Ors.

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune and Anr. Vs Puran Maharashtra Automobiles, Aurangabad and Others

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune and Another Vs Puran Maharashtra Automobiles and Others

M/S. Bhapkar Petroleum a Proprietory Firm Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Balaji Bapurao Kakde and Others Vs Baburao Bapurao Kakde and Another

Saiyed Akhtrunisa Ali Hasan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others