1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2876/2010. Shri Hemrajsingh Fathusing Bhardwaj and another. -: VERSUS :- The State of Maharashtra and others. 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 : SEPTEMBER 16, 2010. Heard Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned Counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri A.Y. Kapgate, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. In proceedings under Section 39[1] of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 the competent Authority namely Additional Commissioner found respondent no.4 disqualified. In Appeal, the respondent no.1 has interfered and set aside that order. Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for petitioners argue that looking to the nature of misconduct proved on record, 2 the removal ordered by respondent no.2 could not have been interfered with. He further states that the finding on residence certificate issued by respondent no.4 to a woman named Pramila, reached by respondent no.1 is perverse. He has invited attention to the consideration of that aspect by respondent no.2 to show that Pramila herself has accepted that she resided at Sendurwaha. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.4 have supported the impugned orders. According to them, after taking into account all relevant factors, the appellate Authority has exercised the discretion available to it. According to Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel there was no scope to exercise such discretion, as the finding on one of the misconduct is erroneous. The respondent no.1 has considered the first misconduct of the quarrel between Shri Gupta and respondent no.4, and found that the matter is pending before the police authorities. Respondent no.2 has also recorded similar finding. About the third misconduct of not holding the women gram sabha before general gram sabha, the Hon'ble Minister has found that respondent no.4 was aware 3 of the statutory requirement in this respect and the meeting has been held shortly after general gram sabha. Only in relation to residence certificate issued to Smt. Pramila, the Hon'ble Minister [respondent no.1] has not recorded any specific finding but than has noticed that there was a certificate issued by Bhuvan Kaptage on record which certified that the said lady was residing in his house on rent since last more than two years. In view of this certificate, the respondent no.1 has not found it necessary to proceed further in relation to even that charge. I, therefore, find that respondent no.1 has appropriately evaluated the controversy and has found that the removal under Section 39[1] of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1948 is unwarranted. I, am therefore, not inclined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by that Authority. Writ Petition is thus rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.