1 wp1670.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1670 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011 Heard. It is apparent that after the report of Block Development Officer received on 10th February, 2011, the petitioner sought production of original records looked into by B.D.O. to point out how that report is not correct. That application was opposed and the competent authority namely, Collector did not find it necessary to call for those records. Perusal of the order sheet reveals that on 22.02.2011, the matter was closed for orders and some time thereafter the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner for not holding requisite number of meetings came to be passed. 2 wp1670.11 2. As the petitioner was denied opportunity to meet the report of B.D.O. by pointing out original records case is made out to interfere in the matter. 3. At this stage, Advocate Mr. Shinde for respondent no.4 states that instead of keeping the Petition pending, the matter should be remanded back to Collector and it should be made time bound. 4. Learned A.G.P. has attempted to justify the order. However, records with him do not show that the original proceedings books looked into by B.D.O. were called for and perused by the Collector before accepting the report of B.D.O. B.D.O. admittedly is not the competent authority to decide whether the petitioner has conducted the requisite number of meetings or not. The finding has therefore of his own by the respondent no.2. 5. In view of this, the impugned order dated 22.02.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is sent back to the respondent no.2 for taking decision afresh in accordance with law at the earliest. The parties are directed to appear before the respondent no.2 on 3rd May, 2011. The respondent no.2 shall in the meanwhile call for original proceedings book from the respondent no. 3 and hear the respective parties in the light of that record. Election to fill in vacancy caused by removal of petitioner also can not stand and same is set aside in the 3 wp1670.11 light of order of this Court dated 21.03.2011. 6. Fresh orders in this respect shall be passed as early as possible and in any case by 30th June, 2011. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp1670.11