Allowed

Sandip Popat Bhagwat v. Ld. District Collector of Pune and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2022WP/10097/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench quashed the order dated 22nd July 2019 passed by the District Collector, Pune dismissing a disqualification application against a Sarpanch. The court held that the Collector failed to consider the petitioner's detailed contentions and evidence. The matter was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision after hearing both parties, with no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22nd July 2019 is quashed and set aside. The Dispute Application is remanded to the Collector, Pune for a fresh decision after hearing both parties.

Sandip Popat Bhagwat Vs Ld. District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Pallavi

¶2

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10097 OF 2022

¶6

Sandip Popal Bhagwat

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ld. District Collector of Pune and Anr.… Respondents

¶10

Mr. S.R. Borulkar i/b Mr. Manoj A. Patil, for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent No. 1

¶12

Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Ranjit D. Shinde i/b Ajinkya M.
Udane, for Respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr. Rahul Bhosale, Respondent No.2 present in person.

¶14

CORAM:MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED:4th OCTOBER 2022

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1.Heard Mr. Borulkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

¶17

Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Kankal,

¶18

learned AGP for Respondent no. 1.

¶19

2.Petitioner is challenging the order dated 22nd July 2019

¶20

passed by the District Collector, Pune in proceeding bearing Dispute
Application No.1225 of 2018. The Petitioners filed the said Dispute
Application under section 14-B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat
Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and sought

¶21

1 of 10

¶22

Pallavi

¶23

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶24

disqualification of Respondent No.2. By impugned order dated 22nd
July 2019, the said Dispute Application was dismissed. Before
considering merits of the impugned order, it is necessary to set out
certain aspects.

¶25

3.The said order dated 22nd July 2019 passed by the District
Collector, Pune was challenged in Appeal No.28 of 2019 before the
Divisional Commissioner, Pune, Division Pune. The said appeal was
filed purportedly under Section 16(2) of the said Act. The Divisional
Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune by order dated 29th October 2021
allowed the said appeal and disqualified the Respondent No.2 as
Sarpanch /Member of Grampanchayat Kurkumbh, Taluka Daund, Dist.
Pune. The said order was challenged by Respondent No.2 by filing Writ
Petition No.7992 of 2021. Learned Single Judge of this Court by order
dated 2nd December 2021 dismissed the said writ petition. Respondent
No.2 challenged the said order by filing Civil Appeal No.4925 of 2022
(SLP(c) No.552 of 2022). The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated
26th July 2022 on the basis of earlier order in the matter of Shobhabai

¶26

Narayan Shinde v. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik

¶27

and Ors.,reported in 2022 (3) SCC 35,held that the order of the

¶28

2 of 10

¶29

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶30

Pallavi

¶31

Divisional Commissioner is without jurisdiction and therefore the same
will be non est. In view of the said legal position, the Supreme Court
set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 29th October
2021 as well as the order dated 2nd December 2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge.

¶32

4.In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner filed present
Writ Petition impugning order dated 22nd July 2019 of Collector, Pune
by which disqualification application filed under Section 14(B) of the
said Act was dismissed.

¶33

5. Mr. Borulkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that very detailed contentions are raised in Dispute
Application and particularly, the contentions raised in paragraph
6(1)B, C, D and E. He submitted that said detailed contentions and
evidence produced in support of the same has not been considered by
the Collector, Pune while dismissing the disqualification application.
He therefore submitted that the impugned order is perverse and liable
to be quashed and set aside and the Disqualification Application be
remanded for deciding the same afresh.

¶34

3 of 10

¶35

Pallavi

¶36

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶37

6.For appreciating the submissions of Mr. Borulkar, it is
necessary to set out the said detailed contentions raised in
disqualification application in para 6(1) B, C, D and E.

¶38

Þ c ] xzkeiapk;r fuoM.kwdhr Hkkx ?ks.kkÚ;k mesnokjkus fuoM.kwdh lkBh R;kus dsysY;k [kpkZpk nSaufnu fg’kksc jkstP;k jkst lknj dsyk ikfgts vls fuoM.kwd vk;ksxkus ca/ku ?kkrys vkgs- R;kpkgh Hkax tkcns.kkj dza-1 Jh- jkgq guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh dsysyk vkgs-

¶39

d] jkT; fuoM.kwd vk;ksxkus ?kkyqu fnysY;k fu;ekuqlkj [kpkZph izek.kds ¼OgkÅplZ½ ;koj mesnokjkph lgh o loZ izek.kds mesnokjkus lk{kkadhr dsysyh vl.ks vko”;d vkgs ¼iku dz 126½ lnj fu;ekpk lq/nk tkc ns.kkj dza-1 Jhjkgqy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh Hkax dsysyk vkgs] R;kauh [kpkZph th izek.kds lknj dsysyh vkgsr R;koj R;kauh lg~;k dsysY;k ukghr rlsp R;kaP;koj lk{kkadu gh dsysys ukgh o lnj fu;ekpk Hkax dsysyk vkgs-

¶40

,o<sp uOgs rj R;kauh [kpkZ ckcrph th izek.kds lknj dsysyh vkgsr R;k izek.kdkoj R;kaps uko gh fyghysys ukgh- xkMh e/ks fM>sy HkjY;kP;k ikoR;k lknj dsysY;k vkgsr- R;kojgh R;kaps uko ukgh rlsp xkMh uacj lq/nk ukgh- QDr rkj[kk Vkdqu ,suosGh cksxl fcys fuoM.kwdhpk [kpZ Eg.kqu lknj dsysyh vkgsr-

¶41

fn- 24@05@2018 jksth th [kpkZph izek.kds lknj dsysyh vkgsr R;k iSdh fcy uacj 171 fLidj lsV ps HkkMs Eg.kqu ukxjkt eaMi dkWUVªWDVj vWUM ykbZV Msdksjs”ku ;kauk jDde :i;s 7500@& vnk dsyh vkgs- R;koj fnukad ueqn ukgh- rlsp fcy uacj 114 Jhjke xzkQhDl vWUM fMthVy fizaVl ;kauk ¶ysDl

¶42

4 of 10

¶43

Pallavi

¶44

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶45

r;kj dj.ks ckcr ps fcy jDde :i;s 7500@& vnk dsY;kps nk[koys vkgs R;kojgh fnukad ueqn ukgh-ß

¶46

v”kk izdkjs ,suosGh [kpkZph fcys xksGk dju dsysY;k [kpkZpk cukoV vgoky fn] 27-06-2018 jksth lknj dju fuoM.kwd vk;ksxkph Qlo.kwd dsyh vkgs]

¶47

M] jkT; fuoM.kwd vk;ksxkus ca/ku dkjd dsysY;k fu;ekuqlkj fuoM.kwd [kpkZlkBh Lora+= cWad [kkrs m?kM.ks o fuoM.kwd laiY;kuarj cWadsps izek.khr fooj.k i= ek] fuoM.kwd vf/kdkjh ;kaP;k [kpZ iFkdkl lknj dj.ks vko”;d vkgs iku dz 126 lnj fu;ekpk lq/nk tkcns.kj dz 1 Jh jkgwy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh Hkax dsysyk vkgs]

¶48

tkcns.kkj dz 1 Jh jkgwy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh fn] 07-05-2018 jksth egkjk’V~ cWad dqjdqaHk “kk[kk ;sFks [kkrs m?kMys vkgs] R;kps fujh{k.k dsys vlrk fn] 07-052018 jksth Eg.kts [kkrs m?kM.;kP;k osGh Qdr 500 j`i;s tek vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs] lnj [kkR;koj brj dks.krhgh nsok.k ?ksok.k O;ogkj v/kki >kysyk ukgh Eg.ktsp fuoM.kwdh lkBh R;kuh tks [kpZ dsyk vkgs rk loZ [kpZ jks[hus dsysyk vkgs] dkj.k R;kauh fuoM.kwd laiY;kuarj cWadsps izek.khr fooj.k i+= ek] fuoM.kwd fu.kZ; vf/kdkjh ;kauk fuoM.kwd [kpkZ lkscr lknj dsysyk ukgh]

¶49

ojhy loZ ?kVuk oju fuoM.kwdh e/;s tkcns.kj dz] 1 Jh jkgwy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh tks ,dw.k [kpZ jDde j~i;s 67017 nk[kfoyk vkgs rks [kpZ lq/nk cksxl vlwu R;k is{kk fdrhrjh -foghr e;kZns is{kk-- tkLr [kpZ dsysyk vkgs- gh ckcgh ;koju Li’V gksrs]

¶50

b ] xzkeiapk;r dqjdqaHk ;sFkhy xzkeiapk;r fuoM.kwdhps ernku fn] 27-052018 jksth ?ks.;kr vkys] R;k fno”kh tkcns.kj dz 1 Jh jkgwu guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh tks [kpkZpk fg”kksc lknj dsyk vkgs R;kr fM>sy 10 fyVj jDde

¶51

5 of 10

¶52

Pallavi

¶53

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶54

ji;s 724 o pgk uk”rk jDde j~i;s 1050 vlk [kpZ nk[kfoyk vkgs- lnj [kpkZoj~u ernkukP;k fno”kh R;kauh izpkj dsY;kps Li’Vi.ks fnlwu ;srs] rlsp ernkjkauk us vk.k dj.;klkBh ogkukpk mi;ksx dj~u ernkjkauk pgk uk’rk fnY;kpsgh fl/n gksrs] ;k oj~u R;kauh fuoM.kwd fu;ekapk o vkpkj lafgrspk m?kM m?kM Hkax dsY;kps fnlwu ;sbZy] rlsp fn 28-05-2018 jksth fM>sy 10 fyVj jDde j~i;s 725 o pgk uk’rk jDde j~i;s 1800 vlk [kpZ dsyk vkgs] ;koju lq/nk tkcns.kkj dz 1 Jh jkgwy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh fuoM.kwd fu;ekapk o vkpkj lafgrspk m?kM m?kM Hkax dj~u vik=rk /kkj.k dsyh vkgs-

¶55

bZ] tkcns.kkj dz 1 Jh jkgwy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh fn 09-05-2018 jkath ukefunZs”ku i= nk[ky djrkauk ts izfrKki= nk[ky dsys vkgs rs uksVjh Hkkjr ljdkj ;kaps leksj dsysys vkgs]

¶56

v”kkizdkjs xzkeiapk;r fuoM.kwdh e/khy >kysY;k [kpkZckcr tkcns.kkj dz 1 Jh jkgwy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauh [kksVh o cksxl ekfgrh nsowu egkjk’V~ xzkeiapk;r vf/kfu;e 1958 ps dye 14&o pk rlsp fuoM.kwd fu;ekapk m?kM m?kM Hkax dj~u vik=rk /kkj.k dsyh vkgs] R;kps i`’B;kFkZ ek] vIij vk;qDr vkSjaxkckn dz 2 ;kauh fn] 15]12]2018 jksth fnysY;k fu.kZ;kph izr lkscr tksMyh vkgs]

¶57

ojhy loZ ckchapk fopkj dj`u tkcns.kj dz 1 Jh jkgwy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kaP;k foj~?n ;ksX; rh dkjokbZ dj~u R;kauk ljiap xzkeiapk;r dqjdaqHk rk] nkSaM ft iw.ks ;k inkoj jgk.;kl vik= Bjokos rlsp iq<hy 6 o’kkZP;k dkyko/kh dfjrk fuoM.kwd y<fo.;kl vik= ?kks’khr djkos]

¶58

Mr. Borulkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out
documentary evidence in support of above contentions.

¶59

6 of 10

¶60

Pallavi

¶61

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶62

7.A perusal of the impugned order shows that none of the
aforesaid detailed contentions and supporting evidence has been taken
into consideration by the Collector, Pune. The relevant portion of the
impugned order is set out hereinunder:

¶63

1 “ vtZnkj ;kauh tkcns.kkj ua 1 ;kauh fuoM.kwd [kpkZpk fg”kksc foghr eqnrhr lknj u dsY;kewGs R;kauk vugZ djkos v”kh ekx.kh dsysyh vkgs] ekSts dqjdqaHk rk] nkSaM ;sFkhy lkoZ=hd fuoM.kwd fn 27-05-2018 jksth >kysyh vkgs] rlsp fn 28]05]2018 jksth xzkeiapk;r dqjdqaHk ;sFkhy erekst.kh >kysyh vkgs] lnj fuoM.kwdhpk fudky izfl/nh fn 29-05-2018 rs 31-05-2018 Ik;Zr gksrh]

¶64

2 ek] jkT; fuoM.kwd vk;ksx egkjk’V~ jkT; ;kaps dMhy fn 24 ,fizy 2018 jksthP;k fuoM.kwd dk;Zdzekuqlkj fn 29-05-2018 rs 31-05-2018 fuoM.kwd fudky izfl/nh rkjh[k usewu ns.;kr vkysyh gksrh] R;kuqlkj rgflynkj nkSaM ;kaP;kdMhy fn 17-07-2018 jksthP;k vgokykuqlkj tkcns.kkj ua 1 ;kauh foghr e q nrhr fn 2706-2018 fuoM.kwd [kpkZpk fg”kksc lknj dsY;kps fnlwu ;srs]

¶65

3] ek] jkT; fuoM.kwd vk;ksx egkjk’V~ jkT; ;kaps dMhy fn 21 vkWxLV 2017 ps vkns”kkuqlkj T;k xzkeiapk;rhzph lnL;la[;k 13 vkgs v”kk xzkeiapk;rhae/;s ljiap inklkBh fuoM.kwd y<fo.kk&;k mesnokjkauh djko;kP;k [kpkZph e;kZnk 100000 brdh vkgs] tkcns.kkj ua 1 ;kauh jq 68723 [kpZ dsY;kph fnlwu ;srs]

¶66

4] fuoM.kwdhP;k fudkykuarj 30 fnolkaP;k vkr ,dw.k [kpkZpk fg”kksc lknj dj.ks ca/kudkjd vkgs] tkcns.kj ua 1 ;kauh foghr eqnrhr [kpkZpk fg”kksc lknj dsysyk vkgs] rlsp R;kauh fuoM.kwdh dfjrk Lora= CkWad [kkrs m?kMY;kps fnlwu ;srs] rlsp fdjdksG Loj~ikps [kpZ jks[khus djrk ;asrhy] rFkkfi R;kps OgkmplZ] ikorh b] Bso.ks ca/kudkjd vkgs v”kh rjrwn vkgs] tkcns.kkj ua 1 ;kauh

¶67

7 of 10

¶68

Pallavi

¶69

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶70

fdjdksG [kpZ jkas[khus dsY;kps fnlwu ;srs]

¶71

vtZnkj ;kauh tkcns.kkj dz 1 ;kauk vik= dj.ksckcr dsysys vkjksi iqjkO;kfu”kh fl/n gksr ukgh] R;keqGs tkcns.kkj dz 1 jkgwy guqearjko Hkkslys ;kauk xzkeiapk;r dqjdqaHk rk] nkSaM ft] iw.ks ;sFkhy ljiapinh vik+= Bjfo.ks ;ksX; gks.kkj ukgh vls ek>s Li’V er >kys vkgs]

¶72

8.A perusal of the impugned order shows that the detailed
contentions raised in disqualification application filed by the Petitioner
and the documents produced by the Petitioner are not at all taken into
consideration. Under Section 14-B of the said Act, it is the duty of the
Collector by considering the pleadings and evidence on record to
record his satisfaction in the impugned order that the successful
candidate has lodged the accounts of election expenses in the manner
required by the State Election Commission and that in case of failure,
there is good reason or justification for the same. The impugned order
do not show that the Collector, Pune has applied his mind and
considered the contentions raised and the material produced.

¶73

9.In view of above position, Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 2 took instructions
from Respondent No.2 who is present in Court and submitted that
Respondent no. 2 has no objection if the matter is remanded back to

¶74

8 of 10

¶75

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶76

Pallavi

¶77

the District Collector by setting aside the impugned order. He only
states that all the contentions raised by the Respondent No.2 be kept
open. As set out earlier, Mr. Borulkar, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner also prayed that the matter be remanded back to the
Collector, Pune.

¶78

10.In view of the above discussion, following order is passed:
(a) The impugned order dated 22nd July 2019 passed
by the District Collector, Pune in Dispute Application
No.1225 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. The said
Dispute Application is remanded back to the Collector,
Pune for fresh decision.

¶79

(b)The District Collector, Pune to hear the said
dispute application afresh and pass order after hearing
both the parties uninfluenced by the impugned order as
also this order.

¶80

(c) Petitioner and Respondent No.2 to appear before
the District Collector, Pune on 12th October 2022 at
11.00 a.m. on 12th October 2022, the District Collector,
Pune to fix schedule of hearing. The District Collector,
Pune is requested to decide the dispute application

¶81

9 of 10

¶82

Pallavi

¶83

8-wp-10097-2022-pallavi.doc

¶84

expeditiously and in any case on or before 31st January
2023.

¶85

(d)Contentions raised by both the parties are
expressly kept open. It is clarified that this Court has not
considered the merits of the case.

¶86

11.At this stage, Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.2 prays that if any adverse order is
passed by the Collector, the same shall not be given effect to for a
period of two weeks. Mr. Borulkar, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner fairly states that in case adverse order is passed against
Respondent no. 2, he has no objection if for a period of two weeks’
protection is granted to the Respondent No.2. If Collector, Pune passes
adverse order against Respondent no. 2, then he shall consider the
request of Respondent no. 2 in accordance with law. It is clarified that
this Court has not expressed any opinion with respect to this aspect.

¶87

12.Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶88

PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR

¶89

 (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J)

¶90

Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2022.10.08 16:30:59 +0530

¶91

10 of 10

Sandip Popat Bhagwat v. Ld. District Collector of Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Popat Bhagwat v. Ld. District Collector of Pune and Anr.

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

Shankar Namdeo Sule vs Namdeo Bhima Sule (Deceased Thr.Lrs) Sou. Sulabai Namdeo Sule and Ors.

Shri Bapurao Vithalrao Bhongle and Anr. Vs Shri Suresh Baban Tamhane and Ors.

M/S. Bharat Udyog Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Ramchandra Padnekar Vs Mrs. Anuradha Bhagwan Shirodkar

Shri Harishankar Ramanand Trivedi and Anr. Vs the Deputy District Registrar of Co-Op. Hou. Societies and Cometent Authority and Ors.

Ayub Sallauddin Shaikh Vs Ld. District Collector of Pune and Ors.