The interpretation of Section 62(1)(b) of the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, and the applicability of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Latif Nomani vs. Commissioner, Gorakhpur and others (AIR 1968 Allahabad 44) were central to the judgment.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. In all these matters, this Court (Vacation Judge), by order dated 11/05/2017, had noted as under:

“1. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 20th of June, 2017. Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.S. Savale, learned Counsel, waives service for respondent no.3.

2. The petitioners in all these petitions are the members of Panchayat Samiti, Dhadgaon. They have been disqualified vide the impugned order on the ground that they had remained absent for the meetings for consecutive three meetings. The disqualification is for contravention of provisions of Section 62(1)(b) of the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

3. Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all these petitioners were present in the meeting held on 22nd of March, 2016. According to Mr. Patil, the petitioners could not attend the meetings scheduled on 21st April, 2016, 13th of May, 2016, 9th of June, 2016, and 24th of June, 2016. Learned Counsel, placing his reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Latif Nomani vs. Commissioner, Gorakhpur and other (AIR 1968 Allahabad 44), submitted that the absence shall be not for three consecutive meetings but for a period of three consecutive months. Learned Counsel further submits that, as has been held by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the cited judgment, the period of three months is to be computed from the date on which the members are stated to have first remained absent. Considering this, according to Shri Patil, the absence of all these petitioners from the meetings of Panchayat Samiti was not for a period of three months and, in such circumstances, they could not have been disqualified.

4. Shri Amit Savale, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 in all these petitions, on whose complaint the petitioners are disqualified, submits that the judgment relied upon by Shri Patil may not be applicable in the facts of the present case. According to Shri Savale, learned Counsel, the petitioners had remained absent for continuous period of three months and in the meetings which were held during the period of said three months and the Commissioner has rightly disqualified the petitioners from holding the post of Member Panchayat Samiti.

5. I have carefully perused the documents on record. I have also mentioned the dates on which the meetings of Panchayat Samiti were held, to which the petitioners are stated to have remained absent. The first such absence was for the meeting held on 21st of April, 2016, and the last meeting to which the petitioners were stated to have remained absent was held on 24th of June, 2016. Though in the period between 21st April to 24th of June total four meetings were held, if the period is computed, it is less than three months. Section 62 (1) (b) of the Act provides for disqualification of the members of the Panchayat Samiti who would remain absent from the Panchayat Samiti meetings for a period of three consecutive months, and not three consecutive meetings. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court cited supra, the period of three months has to be computed from the date of the first meeting from which member absented. The said period is less than three months. Prima facie case is, thus, made out in favour of the petitioners. In view of the above, place these petitions for admission on 20th of June, 2017. Till then, ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) in all these petitions.”

3. Prayer clause 'B" that was granted on 11/05/2017 reads as under:

“Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, execution, implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 18/04/2017 passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, Division Nashik (Exhibit “A”, page 15) in Panchayat Samiti Disqualificat