ANGHA AJIT BHATKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 17th December, 2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, holding that the petitioner was disqualified to be a councillor by virtue of section 16 (1) (k) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (for short the Z. P. Act). Facts giving rise to the petition are stated below :

(3.) The petitioner was elected as a member of the Raigad Zilla Parishad. The husband of the petitioner at the relevant time was the owner of two immovable properties bearing House Nos. 320 and 536 situated at village bagmandle Taluka Shrivardhan District Raigad, falling under the jurisdiction of raigad Zilla Parishad. Two bills bearing bill Nos. 514 and 742 dated 10th May, 2002 and 25th May, 2002 respectively were issued to the husband of the petitioner for the property tax for the financial year 2002-2003. The bills were served on the husband of the petitioner on 11th June, 2002 and 20th June, 2002 but were not paid by him. Hence, writ notices demanding payment were also served on the petitioner's husband on 24th July, 2002 and 30th July, 2002 respectively. The bills were not paid within a period of six months from the date of service of the bills but were paid by the husband of the petitioner on 31st march, 2003. The respondent No. 6 made an application to the Commissioner for declaring that the petitioner had incurred disqualification under clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Z. P. Act. In view of the notification dated 19th may, 1977 issued under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Maharashtra Land revenue Code, 1966 conferring powers of the Commissioner on the Additional commissioner, the Commissioner, Raigad Division transferred to the Additional commissioner the application of the respondent No. 6 for hearing. The additional Commissioner, who is the respondent No. 2 herein, after hearing the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 by an order dated 27th February, 2004 held that the petitioner had incurred disqualification under clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Z. P. Act.