SAU LATABAI BHAURAO PATIL Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER NASHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik in appeal No. 104/2009 and Additional Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute Application No. 34/2009 whereby and whereunder objection raised by the petitioner to the No Confidence resolution was turned down.

(3.) THE short question which the Additional Collector was called upon to decide is as to whether, in fact, the petitioner was residing in the tenanted premises at village Nagar-Deola and that the notice of the meeting was duly affixed on the door of that tenanted premises. It appears that on first available opportunity, the petitioner submitted application (Exh-G) seeking permission to call the panch witnesses who had signed the panchanama regarding service of the notice. She alleged that the panchanama was false and fabricated. She alternatively submitted that if such request is not acceptable, then she may be given one opportunity to file affidavits of those panchas. The application dated 24-09-2009 was rejected by the learned Additional Collector for the reason that the petitioner ought to have filed those affidavits of the panchas before filing of such application and since the dispute was to be decided within fifteen (15) days, the application was liable to be rejected. So, it was rejected.