0508wp3319.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3319 of 2011. Dinesh Haribhau Akolkar ..vs.. Addl.Commissiner and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A.S.Dhore, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. N.A.Gawande, Adv. for the respondent no.3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 5th August, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 7/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, by which order the Appeal filed by the respondent no.3 herein came to be allowed and the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 13/5/2011 was set aside. 2. The respondent no.3 is the Sarpanch of village Kurha, Tq.Chandur Bazar, Distt.Amravati. The petitioner herein had filed an application before the Additional Collector invoking Section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for disqualification of the respondent no.3. The gravamen of the allegations was that respondent no.3 has changed the name of the President of the Gramin Pani Puravatha Samiti and also effected change in the bank account and the said conduct would fall within 0508wp3319.11.odt 2 the mischief of Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. The further allegation was that there was misappropriation on the part of the said Gramin Pani Puravatha Samiti to the extent of Rs.1,03,995/-. The said application filed by the petitioner was looked into by the Additional Collector and considering the said gravamen of allegations, the Additional Collector held that the said two acts allegedly committed by the respondent no.3 herein would fall within the mischief of Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. The Additional Collector, therefore, by his order dated 13/5/2011 allowed the said application filed by the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13/5/2011 passed by the Additional Collector, the respondent no.3 filed an Appeal before the Additional Commissioner under Section 16(2) of the said Act. The Additional Commissioner considered the scope and ambit of Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act and in the context of the acts alleged against the respondent no.3 came to a conclusion that the same would not fall within the mischief of Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act and allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent no.3 by his order dated 7/7/2011. As indicated above, it is the said order which is sought to be impugned in the present petition. 4. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act, which reads as follows - 14. Disqualifications (1) ...................... ...................... ...................... (1)(g) has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat, or in any contract with, by 0508wp3319.11.odt 3 or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat. 5. In juxtaposition, if the acts alleged against the respondent no.3 herein are considered, in my view, they would not fall within the mischief of Section 14(1)(g) of the said act. The said provision envisages an interest by himself or his partner in any work done by the order of the Panchayat or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat. Such is not the case here. The allegations against the respondent no.3 is that by changing the name of the said Gramin Pani Purvatha Samiti misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,03,995/- has been done. The allegations may at the highest amount to a misappropriation of the funds of the Grampanchayat but would not fall within the mischief of Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute