P.C:

1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

2 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. Mr. Joshi waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4. The learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent No.6. Service of rule on Respondent No.5 is dispensed with as it is not the contesting Respondent.

FACTS IN BRIEF

3. By the present Petition, the Petitioner, who is elected member of Gram Panchayat, Shinde Taluka Nasik, District Nasik, has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 28th November, 2011 passed by the Collector, Nasik under Section 16 r/w Section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 in Gram Panchayat Dispute no.62 of 2011. By the said order, it was held that the Petitioner has failed to pay the tax or fees due to the Panchayat within three months from the date on which the amount of said taxes or fees became due and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner has filed Appeal No.194 of 2011 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, which has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21st January, 2012, giving rise to the present Writ Petition.

4. It is not disputed that Vasant H. Jadhav is the real brother of the Petitioner. It is also not disputed that a bill dated 1st June, 2011 under Section 129 (1) of the Act was served on Vasant H. Jadhav on 2nd June, 2011 towards tax demand of Rs.1260/-. According to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, another bill was served in the name of Devram Vithoba Jadhav on Dhanaji Sampat Jadhav on 3rd June, 2011. It is not disputed that in so far as the first bill served on Vasant H. Jadhav is concerned, the amount of Rs.1260/- was paid on 9th September, 2011. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 14(h) of the said Act were initiated by Respondent Nos.1 to 4 against the Petitioner for disqualification. In respect of the bill served on Vasant Jadhav, it was the defence of the Petitioner that he was not a member of the joint family of Vasant Jadhav. It was also his defence that Devram V. Jadhav was not his grandfather and he was not related to Dhanaji S. Jadhav. The Collector passed the impugned order dated 28th November, 2011 and held that the Petitioner is the real brother of Vasant H. Jadhav and both of them have constituted a joint family. In respect of the other bill issued in the name of Devram V. Jadhav, the Collector recorded the finding that Devram V. Jadhav was the paternal grandfather of the Petitioner and that Dhanaji H. Jadhav on whom the bill issued in the name of Devram H. Jadhav was served, was the paternal cousin brother of the Petitioner and Vasant H. Jadhav. It is, however, pertinent to note that there is no specific finding recorded by the Collector that the Petitioner and Devram V. Jahdav or his cousin Dhanaji H. Jadhav constituted the joint family.

5. In Gram Panchayat Appeal No.194 of 2011 which was filed before the Commissioner, the Petitioner has pointed out and argued that the bill in the name of Vasant Jadhav has been paid on 9th September, 2011 and, hence, there can be no disqualification. Before the Commissioner, the submission of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 was to the effect that the bill has been duly served on the brother of the Petitioner on 2nd June, 2011 and since the payment is not made within 90 days from 2nd June, 2011, the Petitioner has incurred disqualification.

6. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the Appeal essentially on the ground that the period of three months will commence from 2nd June, 2011 and the said period will end on 2nd September, 2011, within which the bill was not paid and only on that ground the Appeal has been dismissed.

SUBMISSIONS OF ADVOCATES

7. Mr. Karnik relied upon the provisions of Section 129(1) of the Act and contended that the bill for the tax is to be presented under Sub-Section 1 specifying the date on which appropriate amount shall be paid. Pointing out to