1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5438 /2009. ( Smt. Chandrabhaga Domaji Awale -: versus :- Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur 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 : FEBRUARY 09, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri P.B. Patil learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Shri A. Parchure, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and in the light of earlier orders passed by this Court on 15.12.2009 and 22.01.2010. The dispute arises only because of failure of administration to insist that member receiving the bill has to put date also and of not taking or prescribing any action for not putting such date. The affidavit of Additional Collector has been placed on record by the learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. However, that affidavit except for pointing out the present statutory provision, does not point out why some action cannot be taken against the member in default or officer of the Gram Panchayat in default. It has been stated that instructions have been issued on 13.05.2009 2 and 23.10.2009 in this respect. The measures are not very satisfactory. In the present matter, respondent no.4 initiated action for disqualification against the petitioner complaining of non payment of property tax in the year 2007-08. During enquiry, non payment or late payment for Years 2002-03 and 2004-05 came to notice of authorities and hence, petitioner was disqualified. As this period did not form subject matter of complaint and petitioner had no opportunity, on 13.10.2008 I have allowed Writ Petition No. 4431/2008 and matter was remanded back for consideration of controversy in relation to this period. It is to be noted that the payment of property tax by petitioner for the year 2003-04 or then for period 2005-06 and 2006-07 is not in dispute. Petitioner made a grievance that Bill No.93 allegedly served upon him on 17.08.2004 did not bear his signature and in any case date of service was not put by him. He also pointed out that the certified copy on record did not carry any date of service. He had made grievance about the manipulation of bills for earlier period i.e. 2002-03. After remand the authorities have only called for the records of Gram Panchayat, perused the bill books and though there were several bills which do not carry any date of service, merely because the bill in question appeared in a group of bills which were served on a particular date, inference of service on that date has been drawn. This is apparent from the consideration of demand bill no.89 which accordingly has been found to be served on 12.07.2002. same exercise and logic has been applied in relation to bill 3 no.93 dated 17.08.2004. In view of this specific challenge and also availability of bill on record which did not carry any date, the exercise undertaken is not sufficient. The Division Bench of this Court has in judgment reported at 2006 [5] Mh.L.J. 292 (Rameshwar Ramaji Rewatkar and others .vrs. Dilip Tulsiram Rewatkar and others) pointed out the importance of date of service and also the last date to be prescribed for payment of such bill. Those aspects are not considered at all either by the Additional Collector or Additional Commissioner. In view of this position, the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner as also the order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Additional Collector are unsustainable, the same are accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are free to proceed further in accordance with the law in the matter after giving petitioner and respondent no.4 proper opportunity. The dispute between the parties about absence of date on bill or absence of signature on bill or absence of date of service or receipt of service, needs to be look into while considering the issue. If the authorities feel it appropriate to proceed again in the matter, the authorities shall do so as early as possible and in any case by 30.06.2010. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.