Remanded

Mangala Barku Marathe v. Prafulla Yadavrao Borse and Others

Bombay HC20 Jul 2015WP/5588/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition challenged orders disqualifying petitioners under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for non-payment of taxes. The court set aside the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector and Commissioner, directing a remand to the Additional Collector for reconsideration on merits with proper opportunity to heard, citing uncontroverted claims of non-service

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 29th March, 2014 and 20th March, 2015 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Additional Collector, Dhule for reconsideration on merits after hearing parties.

Mangala Barku Marathe Vs Prafulla… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

{1}

wp5588-15

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5588 OF 2015

¶6

Mangala Barku Marathe

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Prafulla Yadvrao Borse & others RESPONDENTS WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.5589 OF 2015

¶11

Dagdu Ramchandra Bhil PETITIONER

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

Prafulla Yadvrao Borse & others RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S. P. Daund, AGP for respondent State

¶15

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶16

DATE : 20th JULY, 2015

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

These petitions have been moved by the persons who have been considered to be disqualified under section 14 (h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, alleging non payment of tax bill amounts, within the prescribed period, referred to under the same.

¶19

While initial order has been passed by this Court on 7^th July, 2015, following submissions had been advanced and

{2}

wp5588-15

recorded thus -

“1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that despite service, respondents no.1 and 2 who, according to petitioner, are acting hand in glove are not before this court. It is vehemently submitted that though the bills were prepared on 8-72013, the same were served on husband of the petitioner in writ petition No.5589 of 2015 only 18-10-2013. Thereafter within the period expected as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 the amounts under the bills towards tax have been paid by the petitioners on 09-11-2013 and 3110-2013 respectively.

¶24

times

¶25

2. He submits, no disqualification can be said to have been incurred by petitioners at all and the proceedings before the Collector regarding disqualification had been proceeded with ex-parte and as such, the appeals had been filed only to the extent of getting exparte orders set aside and no details as aforesaid have been referred to in the memoranda of the appeals.”

¶26

Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that notings

¶27

on the proceeding sheet of the Collector would indicate that the petitioners can hardly be said to have been served at any

¶28

{3}

¶29

wp5588-15

¶30

pointwp5588 of time before orders dated 29^th March, 2014 had been passed. Since these contentions remain uncontroverted, submissions on behalf of the petitioner that proceedings having went ex-parte at the initial stage before the Collector carry a lot of substance and force.

¶31

This court, therefore, had directed record and proceedings be produced. Pursuant to the same, a receipt book has been produced, which depicts that bills were prepared on 8^th July, 2013. The submission on behalf of the petitioners that, the receipts were served on them on 9^th November, 2013 and 13^th November, 2013 have not been met with. However, that is a matter to be examined by the proper authorities. The other contention is that the matter before the Collector had been proceeded with ex-parte. Said submission also as on the date, has not been controverted, despite respondents being served twice.

¶32

In view of aforesaid and havinwp5588g regard to submissions on merits, which do not find place in the order passed by the Commissioner, I think it appropriate that facts be verified. As such, the impugned orders dated 29^th March, 2014 passed by Additional Collector, Dhule and dated 20^th March, 2015

¶33

{4} wp5588-15

¶34

passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik are set aside. The matters stan`d remanded to Additional Collector, Dhule for reconsideration of the Gram Panchayat Dispute Applications being No. 8 of 2014 and 9 of 2014.

¶35

Additional Collector, Dhule, to hear the parties concerned and by giving adequate and proper opportunities and having regard to the facts and law, pass order on merits, without getting influenced by the observations made hereinbefore in this order.

¶36

Writ petitions, as such, stand disposed of.

¶37

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶38

drp/wp5588-15

Mangala Barku Marathe v. Prafulla Yadavrao Borse and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangala Barku Marathe v. Prafulla Yadavrao Borse 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

Ashok Sambhaji Kamble Vs Baban Dashrath Kamble and Others

Ganpat Baburao Palane Vs Rajabhau Shivayya Swami and Others

Subhash Gopalrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bodhan Nanu Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Dagdu Ramchandra Bhil Vs Prafulla Yadavrao Borse and Others

Usha Vishnu Akolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others