Bombay High Court
Prabhu S/O Panduji Karvate vs Additional Collector, Washim And ... on 30 July, 2018
Author: S. B. Shukre
Bench: S. B. Shukre
1 WP5844.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5844 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Prabhu S/o Panduji Karvate,
Aged about 45 years, Occu. Cultivator,
R/o Wakalwadi, Tq. Malegaon,
Distt. Washim.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] Additional Collector, Washim,
Tq. Washim, Distt. Washim.
2] Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Malegaon,
Tq. Malegaon, Distt. Washim.
3] Secterary, Gram Panchayat,
Wakalwadi, Tq. Malegaon,
Distt. Washim.
4] Sau. Vijaya Raju Vyawahare,
Aged about 25 years, Occu. Household work
5] Sau. Sunita Gajanan Shinde,
Aged about 35 years, Occu. Household work
6] Laxman S/o Kalnu Chape,
Aged about 30 years, Occu. Labourer
7] Maroti S/o Mungshiram Bhurkade,
Aged about 28 years, Occu. Cultivator.
8] Parvatabai Sakharam Bhokre,
Aged about 60 years, Occu. Household work
Nos.4 to 8 residents of Wakalwadi,
Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:17:45 :::
2 WP5844.17.odt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C. A. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare, A. G. P. for the respondent nos.1&2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : JULY 30, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
3. The petition challenges the order dated 04.7.2017 passed by respondent no.1 - Additional Collector by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act, 1958 challenging no confidence motion passed against him, came to be rejected.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice of motion for No Confidence was never served upon the petitioner and whereas it is the submission of the ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:17:45 ::: 3 WP5844.17.odt learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2 that as per the record, the notice was duly served upon the petitioner.
5. Considering such submissions, one has to say that this petition involves a question of disputed facts and in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, it would be very difficult to resolve this question. However, as the original record for perusal of the Court has been produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, an attempt can be made.
6. On going through the original record, I find that there is a signature of the petitioner appearing on the copy of the notice, which as per the panchanama dated 18.4.2017, has been served upon him on 18.4.2017. The panchanama dated 18.4.2017 drawn by Talathi bears the signatures of seven persons as panchas. The signatures of the panchas have not been disputed by the petitioner although, it is the contention made generally on his behalf that this panchanama is a false document. The contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the signatures of all the seven panchas have not ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:17:45 ::: 4 WP5844.17.odt been specifically denied by the petitioner.
7. In such circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality having been committed by the authorities below. There is no merit in the petition. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE Diwale ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:17:45 :::