LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-42

RAMESHWAR RAMJI REWATKAR Vs. DILIP TULSIRAM REWATKAR

Decided On July 13, 2006
RAMESHWAR RAMAJIREWATKAR Appellant
V/S
DILIP TULSIRAM REWATKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD finally by consent.

(2.) THIS appeal arises from the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28-2-2006 in W. P. No. 838 of 2006. By the impugned order the learned Single judge has dismissed the said writ petition which was filed challenging the orders dated 30-5-2005 and 27-1-2006 passed by the Additional Collector Nagpur and divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, respectively, allowing the application under section 14 (1) (h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter called as the said 'act') filed by respondent No. 1 herein and thereby had declared the appellants to have been disqualified to continue to be the members of Gram Panchayat dodki.

(3.) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the appellants were elected in november 2003 as members of Dodki Gram Panchayat. The bills relating to the panchayat taxes came to be issued on 1-8-2004 and the same were served upon the appellants on 3-8-2004. In terms of the bills, the last date for payment of taxes was 31-8-2004. The appellants herein paid the taxes payable under those bills on 8-11-2004. The respondent No. 1 herein on 17-11-2004 filed an application under section 14 (1) (h) of the said Act contending that the appellants stood disqualified to continue to be the members of the Gram Panchayat for having failed to pay the taxes within the period of three months from the date of demand of the tax by the Panchayat. After the necessary enquiry and after hearing the parties, the Additional Collector upheld the contention sought to be raised by the respondent No. 1 and declared that the appellants herein to have been disqualified to continue to be the members of the said Gram Panchayat. In the appeal carried against the said order, the Divisional Commissioner confirmed the said decision of the Additional Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein preferred W. P. No. 838 of 2006 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.