Padminbai Narsing Panchal v. The Additional Collector Nanded And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

943 WRIT PETITION NO. 2971 OF 2017 SAW. PADMINBAI NARSING PANCHAL

VERSUS

THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, NANDED AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh. AGP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. N. T. Bhagat.

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. G. J. Pahilwan. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ravindra Vitthal Gore. ...

CORAM :

V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATE :

05th December, 2017.

ORDER:

.

The learned counsel for Petitioner by relying upon the ratio laid down by this Court in the cases of Laxmibai Yadavrao Panchal Vs. The Additional Collector, Nanded and others, decided in Writ Petition No.8668 of 2015 on 5th May, 2016 (Coram: Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.) and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, decided in Writ Petition No.3419 of 2013 on 4th December, 2013 (Coram: S. S. Shinde, J.), submits that from the contents of notice, which has been issued to the Petitioner under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it is manifest that there is no mention of any specific charges / points, which are required to be

answered by the Petitioner. The learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid cases, this Court by referring the ratio laid down in the case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector and others, reported in, 2010 (4) Bom.C.R. 700, observed that to enable the Sarpanch to raise proper defence and explain sufficient cause for his failure to perform any statutory function, he must be informed essentially as regards his failure meaning thereby he must be communicated the specific charges. The learned counsel submits that in view of the facts of the present case also, the enquiry and order passed by the Additional Collector stand vitiated for non-compliance of basic principles of natural justice.

The learned counsel for Respondent No.3 / original Plaintiff has also not disputed this legal position. In view of the above submissions and in the light of the identical facts of the case, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and the proceedings are sent back for re-consideration to the Collector, Nanded / Additional Collector, Nanded with directions that the Collector, Nanded / Additional Collector, Nanded shall dispose of the aforesaid dispute in terms of the observations made as above afresh. Having regard to aforesaid, it is also directed that after the

remand, the proceedings should be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ] ndm