1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4765 /2010 (Sau.Kantabai Kokate and others vs. Addl.Commissioner and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10 th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Advocate Khapre for petitioner; Advocate Thakre for respondent no.2- Zilla Parishad and learned AGP Sonare for respondent no.1. This Court has on 28.9.2010 issued notice for final disposal and directed maintenance of status quo. In this backdrop, Advocate Khapre has stated that three petitioners have not been have not been permitted to function as members, after this order. His contention is the Chief Executive Officer ( in short “CEO” ) conducted an enquiry into the matter and submitted a report exonerating the petitioners. If Respondent No.1 wanted to differ with any finding as recorded in that report, notice thereof with reasons for differing ought to have been first made available to petitioners so as to extend to them an effective opportunity of defence. He further states that before the CEO statement of employee of Gram Panchayat was also recorded and copy of that statement has not been supplied to petitioners at all. According to learned counsel if after exoneration the respondent no.1 wanted to take a different view of this, 2 requirement of principles of natural justice needed to be scrupulously complied with. He has contended that there was no caste angle to the entire episode and elected members from very same area had also consented to closure of public tap. He has attempted to demonstrate to this Court the subsequent event that free of cost private water taps are now made available to individual resident sand hence need for public tap no longer exists. The move to remove public taps therefore, was already initiated. He states that these private taps are provided in accordance with the policy after examining the eligibility of claimant. Advocate Thakre states that enquiry under section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is to be conducted by the respondent no.2-CEO and that enquiry was accordingly completed in which the petitioners were given requisite opportunity. He states that there are no allegations in present matter against respondent no.2. Learned AGP states that the petitioners had with them copy of the enquiry report of CEO and they were aware that action under section 39(1) was contemplated. Hence appropriate opportunity in accordance with law was made available to them. Attention is initiated to the impugned order to show that though matter was fixed on various dates by respondent no.1- Addl. Commissioner nobody appeared for petitioners and hence ultimately on the basis of record,the matter has been decided. He points out that there was earlier resolution of Gram Panchayat not to disconnect said water tap and in defiance of that resolution by 3 bringing pressure, the petitioners succeeded in up[rooting the tap. His contention is, hence this Court should not interfere in the matter. Learned counsel for petitioner states that it is not in dispute that copies of statement recorded by the CEO were not made available to petitioners. He further states that petitioners had engaged an Advocate for representing them before the respondent no.1 and the concerned Advocate did appear and file reply on behalf of the petitioners. Said Advocate had pointed out that petitioners were already exonerated by the CEO and hence the matter needed to be closed. The question whether the petitioners needed a separate notice from respondent no.1 indicating his reasons for not accepting the report of CEO arises for determination in this matter. However, as I find that the aspect has not been looked into by respondent no.1, the question can be initially exmained by that authority. Similarly, it is apparent that statements acted upon by the CEO were not made available to petitioners. The reason appears to be as report prepared by the CEO on the basis of those statements was in favour of petitioners. In this situation if respondent No.1 wanted to take a different view of the matter, it was obligatory for him to at least to see that necessary documents on the strength on which such finding was being taken needed to be supplied to the petitioners. Reply filed on behalf of the petitioners by their Advocate clearly revealed the impression under which petitioners were dwelling. At that time if that impression was not correct, the respondent no.1 ought to have passed an 4 order removing that impression or confusion and thereby extending appropriate effective opportunity to petitioners to participate in hearing. Admittedly that has not been done. In these situation, interest of justice can be met by directing respondent no.1 to rehear the petitioners in accordance with law in the light of observations made above. All contentions being raised before caused upon for consideration by that authority. For that purpose,the impugned order dated 31.8.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside in proceedings in Case No. 39/1/36/2008-09 of Gram Panchayat, Pipri Meghe are are restored back to his file for taking a fresh decision. The petitioners and respondent no.2 are directed to appear before the respondent no.1 on 6.1.2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. Rule is made absolute accordingly. JUDGE sahare