Advocates:
['SALUNKE MAYUR V', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'R Nos to served', 'AGP', '', 'DESHMUKH MAHESH S AND BOLANKAR VASANT S']

{1}

wp3378.22

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.3378 OF 2022

Bandu Machindra Bhil

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Additional Commissioner and Others

RESPONDENTS

.......

Mr. Mayur V. Salunke Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for respondent - State

Mr. M. S. Deshmukh,Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4

....…

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

DATE : 20

^th APRIL, 2022

ORDER :

1.

The petitioner is the Sarpanch of village Panchayat Karmad

(Khurd), Taluka – Parola, District – Jalgaon. On a complaint

lodged by respondents No. 3 to 5 that the petitioner has failed to

submit the account of election expenses within a period of thirty

days from the date of declaration of the election result, the

Collector – respondent No.2, disqualified the petitioner under

sections 14-B (2) and 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat

Act, 1958 (hereinafter for short “the said Act”).

2.

The petitioner, therefore, challenged the order of his

disqualification, by filing appeal under section 14B (2) of the said

{2}

wp3378.22

Act, before the Additional Commissioner – respondent No.1.

Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed application seeking

stay to the order of disqualification. The stay application filed by

the petitioner is rejected by the Commissioner – respondent

No.1. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

This matter was heard for admission on 11^th March, 2022

and interim order is passed in favour of the petitioner. Now,

respondents No.3 to 5 have appeared in the matter and opposed

the writ petition.

4.

Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned

advocate for the respondents and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader.

5.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that election

results were declared on 18^th January, 2021 and the petitioner

submitted election expenses on 17^th January, 2021, however, the

Collector has erroneously held that the election expenses should

have been submitted on or before 16^th February, 2021. By

relying in “Shaikh Nisar Ibrahim and Another V/s State of

Maharashtra and Others” 2019 (5) Mh.L.J. 749, he submits that

minor delay of 1 day in this case ought to have been condoned

and the Collector was not justified in disqualifying the

{3}

wp3378.22

democratically elected petitioner on this technical ground.

6.

Learned advocate for the respondents vehemently opposed

the writ petition contending that the petitioner has not placed on

record the complete copy of the order passed by the

Commissioner refusing stay to the petitioner. The petitioner has

only placed on record the copy of the letter intimating him that

his stay application is rejected. He pointed out note below the

said letter, which states that if certified copy of the decision is

required, the petitioner may obtain the same by depositing

necessary charges. By pointing out averments in the writ petition

that respondent No.1 has passed un-reasoned order, learned

advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner has

secured interim relief in his favour by making incorrect

submissions. By relying in “K. D. Sharma V/s Steel Authority of

India Ltd and others” (2008) 12 SCC 481, he submits that since

the petitioner has suppressed complete order of refusing stay in

the appeal filed by the petitioner, the writ petition may be

dismissed on this ground alone. He further submits that by

misinterpreting the order passed by this Court, the petitioner is

trying to take charge of the post of Sarpanch. According to him

the petitioner is not entitled to take charge of the post of

Sarpanch. He submits that the writ petition may be dismissed

{4}

wp3378.22

summarily.

7.

It is a matter of record that the petitioner is disqualified

from holding the post of Sarpanch on the sole ground that he

failed to submit election