1 lpa50.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2467 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 634 OF 2011 Ram S/o Tukaram Dadewad and others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel with Mr. E.G. Irale, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent/State. Shri P.R. Tandale, Advocate for respondent no.3. Shri M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent no.5. ..... (CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 10th June, 2011. ORAL ORDER : 1. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.01.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the Writ Petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed. The grievance of the appellants, who were the members of the Gram Panchayat, is that they have been removed without following the provisions of Section 39 of the 2 lpa50.11 Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is contended on behalf of the appellants by the learned Counsel appearing for them that the notice issued to them was for dissolution of Gram Panchayat and not for their removal. According to him, therefore, the appellants were prejudiced by this notice, as they were not informed that an enquiry was to be conducted against them for their removal as the members of the Gram Panchayat. The second submission of the learned Counsel is that the enquiry conducted against the appellants for their removal, was not conducted by the Chief Executive Officer as required under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. Reliance is placed on the decisions of two learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Nimba Yadav Bhoi V/s President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad and others reported in 2002 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 944 and Suman W/o Prameshwar Rangari V/s State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 700 of 2009, decided on 19th June, 2009 by the Nagpur Bench, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Section 39(1) are mandatory and no other person, but the Chief Executive Officer, can conduct an enquiry for removing the Sapranch or the Upsarpanch or the members of the Gram Panchayat from office. 2. We have heard the parties at length and we do not find any 3 lpa50.11 reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is true that the Chief Executive Officer in the present case, has taken into consideration the report submitted by the Block Development Officer on 19.12.2009, indicating that the resolution had been passed by the Gram Panchayat to fell trees, which were to be tended by the Gram Panchayat, as directed by the Social Forestry Department. However, the Chief Executive Officer has afforded an opportunity to the appellants to answer as to whether they had, in fact, passed a resolution for felling the trees. The appellants have admitted that the resolution was passed pursuant to which several trees were felled. 3. After the order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, the proceeding was sent to the Divisional Commissioner as required under Section 39A of the Act, who also afforded the appellants an opportunity to be heard. The Divisional Commissioner after hearing the appellants passed an order against them. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the appellants to the State Government. That appeal again has been dismissed on 11th January, 2010 after hearing the appellants. 4. In our opinion, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the matter, since the appellants were given adequate opportunity of 4 lpa50.11 being heard, by the Chief Executive Officer. Not only this, the safeguard in the proviso to Section 39A of the Act of the Divisional Commissioner hearing the parties before any decision is taken, was also adhered to. The appellants were heard by the Divisional Commissioner, who then passed an order against them. 5. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants do not help the appellants in any manner as the facts in those cases are distinguishable from the facts in the present case. In the present case, the Chief Executive Officer can not be said to have not conducted any enquiry, or that the appellants had not been afforded an opportunity to be heard. 6. Appeal dismissed, accordingly. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal itself, the Civil Application is also dismissed, accordingly. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) ga s/wp1153.10