ASARAM SAKHARAM BHANDWALADAR Vs. COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was elected to Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad some time before July 12, 1966, Under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, as a member of the Zilla Parishad he was an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti of Kannad. It was alleged against him that he had failed to attend the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti from May 27, 1965 to September 14, 1965, for a period exceeding 3 months. It was alleged that since he had remained absent for the above period and not attended the Panchayat Samiti meetings he had vacated the office of the membership of the Panchayat. The Opponent NO. 2 Harishchandra Bhagaji filed an application in that connection and submitted it to the Chariman of the Panchayat Samiti. That application was forwarded to the Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Commissioner called for a report in that connection and the Executive officer of the Z. P. submitted his report to the Commissioner. The Commissioner issued a notice dated July 12, 1966,. therein reciting that without obtaining any leave of absence from the Panchayat Samiti the petitioner had remained absent from the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti for a period exceeding 3 months and that in consequence he had ceased to be member of the Panchayat Samiti. The Commissioner called upon the petitioner to show cause at the meeting to be held at 2. 30 p. m. on August, 4, 1966, as to why it should not be held that the petitioner had ceased to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti. Ultimately, by his order dated September 21, 1966, the Commissioner held that the petitioner being a councillor of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, and a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Kannad, had in fact remained absenct from the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti for a period of 3 consecutive months without permission of the Panchayat Samiti and as such the office of his councillorship of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, as well as the office of his membership of Panchayat Samiti, kannad, had become vacant as per provisions of S. 62 (2) of the Act with effect from the date of the order.

(2.) IN this petition, the above order of the Commissioner is challenged as illegal. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the procedure prescribed in sub-sec (2) of the Section 62 has not been followed. The consquence of not following that procedure was that the Commissioner had no authority under any of the provisions of the Act to make a finding that the Petitioner had ceased to be a Councillor of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, and/or had vacated his office as a member of the Panchayat Samiti. It is further contended that in fact the notice dated July 12, 1966, did not refer to the question of the petitioner having vacated his office as Councillor of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. In connection with the order declaring that the petitioner had ceased to be a Councillor of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, notice to show cause had never been served and a reasonable and/or sufficient opportunity to render explanations was never given to the petitioner.

(3.) ON behalf of the opponents, it has been submitted that the contentions made as above on behalf of the petitioner are incorrect. The submission was that under the scheme of Section 62 of the Act the Commissioner had a right to decide that in consequence of his having been absent for a period exceeding 3 consecutive months from the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti the petitioner had ceased to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti and had consequently also ceased to be a Councillor of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. It was further submitted that the notice dated July 12, 1966, was sufficient notice in connection with all the matters decided by the Commissioner.