Bombay High Court
Nilesh So Vinayakrao Deshmukh vs The Additional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 14 November, 2022
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 17.WP.7067-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7067 OF 2022
( Nilesh S/o Vinayakrao Deshmukh
Vs.
The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Indranil J. Damle, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the Respondent No.3/Caveator.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 14th NOVEMBER, 2022.
Heard.
2. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the petitioner has been disqualified under Section 14 (1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, (For short the "MVP Act"), on the ground that when there was a training programme for Sarpanch at Sindkhed Raja between 29.10.2021 to 01.11.2021, which the petitioner attended and also a training programme at Pune between 06.12.2021 to 08.12.2021, to attend which, when the petitioner had reached Pune on 05.12.2021, he was informed by the BDO, that the venue of the training programme had shifted to Amravati. In order to reach Amravati, as there was a strike by MSRTC, a private vehicle was hired by the petitioner to reach him to Amravati and the 2 17.WP.7067-2022.odt petitioner had thereafter attended the training programme at Amravati. The bills for travelling expenses of both the training programmes were submitted to the Secretary of the Panchayat, which was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- on 05.12.2021 by passing a resolution in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. A complaint against this was lodged by the respondent No.3, claiming disqualification under Section 14 (1)(g) of the MVP Act, in which by an Order dated 21.09.2022, the Additional Collector Buldhana (page 49), has allowed the application and held the petitioner to be disqualified under Section 14 (1)(g) of the MVP Act. An appeal against this, has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by the order dated 21.10.2022 (page 66).
3. It is contended by Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the act of claiming travelling expenses for the training sessions attended by the petitioner, would not fall within the language of Section 14 (1)(g) of the MVP Act, and therefore, the impugned orders of disqualification cannot be sustained, for which there appears to be a prima-facie case indicating the words used in Section 14 (1)(g) of the MVP Act.
4. Mr. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.3, does not dispute the language of Section 14 (1)(g) of the MVP Act, he however submits, that the conduct of the petitioner, in sanctioning the expenses to himself, contrary to the rules in that regard namely the Bombay Gram Panchayat (Member) (Travel 3 17.WP.7067-2022.odt and Daily Allowances) Rules, 1966 would indicate satisfaction of the requirement under Section 14 (1)(g) of the MVP Act. Specifically so, when the resolution has been passed on 05.12.2021, but the cheque has been released and honoured on 03.12.2021.
5. From the above, it is apparent, that the matter needs interpretation regarding Section 14 (1)(g) of the MVP Act. The learned Counsels for the respective parties are wiling to work out the matter finally and seek a couple of days time for the same, considering which, list the matter on 16.11.2022.
6. Till 16.11.2022, no further action should be taken on the basis of the impugned orders.
7. Steno copy is granted.
8. The respondents to file their submissions on record by 15.11.2022.
JUDGE SD. Bhimte Signed By:SHRIKANT DAMODHAR BHIMTE Signing Date:14.11.2022 15:26