1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 476 /2009 (Bhaurao Gopalrao Nakhale Vs. Addl. Commr. Amravati & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Kasat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.G.P. For respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.P. Palshikar, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4 to 6. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 18 , 2009 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 6, under the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, as also the order passed by the Additional Collector, on 1/10/2007, allowing the application filed by the petitioner and disqualifying the respondent nos. 4 to 6 under the provisions of Section 14 (h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The petitioner had filed an application before the Additional Collector for disqualification of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 as they had not paid the taxes within a period of three months from the date of receipt of demand notice and hence they were liable to be disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(h) of the Act of 1958. It was stated in the application that the Sarpanch had issued demand notices as per the provisions of Section 129(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, on 20/7/2006. It was further stated in the 2 application that though the time of three months had lapsed from the date of issuance of the demand notice, the respondent nos. 4 to 6 had not paid the tax which was demanded by the said notices. The respondent nos. 4 to 6 filed their reply to the application and specifically denied that they or any person in their family had received the demand notice on 20/7/2006. In fact, it was canvassed before the Additional Collector, on the basis of certain statements of facts, that the demand notices could not have been served on the respondents on 20/7/2006. The Collector, on an appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties on record, came to a conclusion that the respondent nos. 4 to 6 were liable to be disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(h) of the Act of 1958. The order passed by the Additional Collector was challenged by the respondent nos. 4 to 6 before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, on an appreciation of the documents and the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the petitioners had not proved that the respondents were liable to be disqualified under Section 14(h) of the Act of 1958 as the demand bills only mentioned the date but it was not shown by any document that the demand bills were actually served on the respondent nos. 4 to 6 on a particular date. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, observed that there was no document on record to prove that the respondent nos. 4 to 6 were served with the demand notice on 20/7/2006 and, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector was liable to be set aside. I have considered the submissions made on behalf 3 of the parties and have also perused the impugned orders as also the applications filed by the petitioner and the reply filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 6. The affidavits and other documents are also considered. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, committed no error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. The additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, rightly held that it was necessary for the petitioner to prove the service of the demand notice on the respondent nos. 4 and 6, on 20/7/2006, to seek the disqualification of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 under Section 14(h) of the Act of 1958. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, rightly held that the respondent nos. 4 to 6 could not have been disqualified under Section 14(h) of the Act of 1958 as there was no document to show that the demand notices were actually served on those respondents on 20/7/2006. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that it is not necessary to prove the date of service of demand notice is liable to be rejected as a period of three months has to be calculated considering the date of service of the demand notice on the concerned person. The judgment reported in (2004) 1 Mh.L.J. 1062 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case as in the reported decision, the concerned parties had not disputed that they had received the notices and it was merely submitted on behalf of them that the date on which the said notices were received had not been mentioned below the signatures. In the instant case, on perusal of the reply filed by the 4 respondent nos. 4 to 6 would show that the respondent nos. 3 to 6 categorically denied that the notices were indeed issued on 20th of July, 2006 and also received by the respondent nos. 4 to 6 on 20/7/2006 and that a period of three months lapsed from the date of receipt of the notice. Since there was no document on record to show that the service of the notice was indeed effected on the respondent nos. 4 to 6 on 20/7/2006, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, held that the respondent nos. 4 to 6 could not have been disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(h) of the Act of 1958. The view taken by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, is not unreasonable. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP