1 wp6366.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6366 OF 2010 Sangeeta Madhukar Kelkar ...Petitioner vs. Vilas Dattatraya Gavandi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Pratap Patil for the petitioner Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the respondent no.1 Mr.Suresh Bhosale, A.G.P for respondent no.3 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent. An application was made by the 1 st respondent under section 14(1) (g) r/w section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by contending that the petitioner has incurred disqualification. The allegation made by the 1 st respondent was that the petitioner who was an elected member of the village panchayat has incurred disqualification in as much as her son has been granted contract by the village panchayat for repairs of drains. It appears that the petitioner did not appear before the Collector before whom the application under section 16 of the said Act was made by the 1 st respondent. The Collector recorded a finding that on 23 rd May 2009 the petitioner herself had made an application to the village panchayat seeking work of construction of drains and at her instance, the contract was granted in the name of her son. The Collector found that the petitioner and her son 2 wp6366.sxw were residing together and therefore, the petitioner had an indirect interest in the contract awarded in the name of her son. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of disqualification passed by the Collector. The said appeal has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that the petitioner was residing with her son, that by itself is no ground to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had an indirect interest in the contract. He placed reliance on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Tejilal Vs. State (AIR 1957 Madhya Pradesh 88) and submitted that unless there was a specific allegation that the petitioner has herself taken the contract in the name of her son, the disqualification cannot be attracted. He submitted that even the minutes of the meeting were fabricated, to ensure that the petitioner who is an independent member should stand disqualified. He, therefore, submitted that the finding of the Collector is completely erroneous and by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner has even an indirect interest in the contract. 3 I have considered the submissions. The minutes of meeting dated 26 th May 2009 record that an application was made by the petitioner herself on 23 rd May 2009 for grant of contract of repairs of the drains. In the minutes it is recorded that after the application was read over, it was explained that as per rules, the said contract cannot be given to the members of the village panchayat or to their sons. The minutes further record that even thereafter, the petitioner stated that the contract be awarded in the name of her son and a cheque be issued in the name of her son. There is a finding of 3 wp6366.sxw fact recorded that the two cheques in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each were issued by the village panchayat in the name of the son of the petitioner and the said cheques have been encashed by the son of the petitioner. 4 It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the minutes appear to be fabricated. Perusal of the memorandum of appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner shows that no specific contention was raised by the petitioner that the minutes of meeting are fabricated. Only a vague contention has been raised that record has been fabricated. Moreover, there is a finding of fact that the application for grant of contract was made by the petitioner herself and a total amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the village panchayat to the petitioner s son towards work of carrying on repairs of drains. Considering what is recorded in the minutes of meeting to which there is no specific challenge, it is obvious that the contract was awarded in the name of the petitioner s son at the instance of the petitioner and therefore, there is a finding recorded that the petitioner had at least an indirect interest in the work done. 5 There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities. Petition is accordingly rejected. JUDGE