Bombay High CourtWP/5026/2019dismissedrule discharged

Sau. Sangeeta W/ Sumed Bagalkar And Another v. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati And Others

2019-07-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp5026.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5026/2019 Sau. Sangeeta W/o Sumed Bagalkar and another ..Vs..

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.

CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 23.7.2019.

Heard.

By order dated 24th January 2019, the President of Zilla Parishad disqualified the petitioners (elected Members of Grampanchayat) on the ground that they were absent for more than six consecutive months for the meetings of the Grampanchayat without leave of the Grampanchayat. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner in appeal which is dismissed by the impugned order.

The subordinate Authorities, after considering the documentary evidence on record have concurrently held that the petitioners have failed to show that the charge levelled against them is not correct. The petitioners contend that the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat (respondent No.4) played mischief and though the petitioners had been attending the meetings of the Grampanchayat as is evident from the minutes of

2 wp5026.19 meetings written in the proceedings book, their signatures were obtained on a separate register and that register was not produced before the Authorities. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The petitioners are elected representatives and it cannot be said that they were misled by someone and they had put their signatures on some different register and not on the proceedings book, where they should have signed.

I find that the conclusions of the Authorities are based on proper appreciation of facts and does not require any interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.