LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-275

LALITA DHANRAJ JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 21, 2020
Lalita Dhanraj Jadhav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent, the Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The Petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 16/06/2020 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik (Respondent No.5) in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.75 of 2019. By the impugned order, the Respondent No.5 has dismissed the Appeal for having been filed beyond the period of 15 days stipulated in Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Act'). Relying upon the decision of this Court in Annapurna w/o. Jagdish Dode v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. (Writ Petition 8727 of 2012), learned Commissioner has held that the authorities under the Panchayat Act are not 'Courts' and have no power to condone the delay.

(3.) Mr. Sachin Gite, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned Additional Collector had closed the matter for orders without fixing any specific date for pronouncement of the order. He submits that the date on which the order was passed was not communicated to the Petitioner. The Petitioner learnt about the said order only on 28/08/2019, which was the starting point of limitation. He submits that the appeal was filed within 15 days from the date of knowledge of the order and was therefore within the period of limitation contemplated under Section 16(2) of the Act. On literal construction of the Section, there was delay of 18 days in filing the appeal and hence as an abundant caution, the Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sangitabai Vasudeo Rajput vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 2018 1 BCR 588, and of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Swapnil Narayan Malke vs. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur , 2019 2 AllMR 423, he submits that the learned Additional Commissioner has grossly erred in dismissing the Appeal as barred by limitation.