*1* wp.8807.8808.10.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8807 OF 2010 Shamkant Laxman Varpe. ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.M.S.Karnik, for the Petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Mr.Nitin S. Nevashe, for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 16th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.Karnik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is original Opponent No.1 in Appeal No.42/2010 which has been decided by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune by the order dated 29.09.2010. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the contesting Respondent Nos.4 and 5, namely, Mr.Shamkant alias Sham Dhondiba Borhade and Mr.Bharat Dagdu Borhade, who are members of the Village Panchayat Shirur (Borhademala), stand disqualified by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. They have clearly defaulted in payment of taxes. Inviting my attention to the observations in paragraph Nos.3 (a) and (b) of the impugned order, it is contended by Mr.Karnik that both issues on which the remand has been ordered are now settled by the legal pronouncements. Inviting my attention to the judgment and order dated 18.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.5461/2010 (Vilas Maruti Kardile & others *2* wp.8807.8808.10.sxw v/s Vasudev Shrikisan Chavan and others), it is urged by Mr.Karnik that there was nothing erroneous or illegal about a bill raised by the Village Panchayat. A composite bill for the entire financial year could have been raised and if there is default, then, the disqualification would be incurred. Mr.Karnik submits that on applicability of the provisions and maintainability of the proceedings, there are decisions of this Court and there was no necessity of remand. 2 After having perused the petition and annextures thereof and particularly the order of remand, I have no doubt in my mind that on remand the Collector will apply legal principles as laid down in the decisions of this Court which are binding on him. Merely because the issue is now settled by the Division Bench judgment, does not warrant interference with the order of remand, particularly, because the contesting Respondents for whom Mr.Nevashe is appearing have stated that the Division Bench judgment is being challenged in the Honourable Supreme Court. Similarly, on the applicability of the provisions and whether, actually there is default or not, these are matters which are best left to be decided by the Collector on remand. There is no necessity of entering into any wider controversy. The remand order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 3 In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Collector shall make an endeavour to dispose of the proceedings on remand as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from today. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) *3* wp.8807.8808.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8808 OF 2010 Shamkant Laxman Varpe. ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.M.S.Karnik, for the Petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Mr.Nitin S. Nevashe, for the Respondent No.4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 16th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Writ Petition No.8807/2010, this Writ Petition is also dismissed with the same directions. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)