1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LPA No. 593/2010 in Writ Petition No. 3231/2010 Girijabai w/o Sheshrao Awale Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M. I. Dhatrak, Adv. for the appellant. Mr. Kilor, Advocate for the respondent no.5. Mrs. Dangre, Addl. G. P. for respondents 1 to 3, CORAM: S.A. BOBDE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 15TH MARCH, 2011. 1. Heard. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing writ petition of the appellant. The appellant is disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Section 14(1)(h) reads thus:- “14 (1) No person shall be a member of a Panchayat or continue as such, who - (a) to (g) …. (h) fails to pay any tax or fee due to the 2 Panchayat [or the Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him; or” 3. The learned Single Judge has found that the bill dated 8th August 2008 making demand for payment of tax was served on 4th May 2007 for an amount of Rs. 440/- and that it was paid on 2nd November, 2007. 4. Action for disqualification of Chandrabhaga Awale was initiated on the complaint that she had not paid the property tax for the year 2007-08 within time. The Divisional Commissioner eventually by order dated 30.6.2010 found, after series of remands by this Court, that Chandrabhaga had incurred disqualification. Against the said order, Chandrabhaga preferred Writ Petition which has been allowed holding that she is not rendered disqualified since she has made payment of tax within time as prescribed by law. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has filed by the complainant/appellant. 5. Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the payment could not have been 3 considered as having been made within the time prescribed by law. Section 14(1) (h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 provides for a period of three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on the member. According to Shri Dhatrak, since the service of a bill was on 5.5.2007, period of three months for the purpose of payment expired on 31.8.2007 and, therefore, the payment is made beyond time. 6. Section 14 (1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 make it clear that the arrears must be cleared by a member “within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him.” 7. Here, the bill clearly shows that the date by which the payment was to be made was 31.8.2007. Since the payment was made on 2.11.2007 it must be taken to have been made within three months from the date of demand which is 31.8.2007. 4 8. Shri Dhatrak, the learned counsel for the appellant further contended that what is relevant is not the date of demand but it is the date on which the bill is served. 9. We see no merit in this contention. The provisions clearly stipulates that disqualification is attracted upon failure to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him. Thus what is crucial is the date on which the tax is demanded. 10. In the normal course of events the date on which a bill is served before the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded and the date on which such tax becomes payable is stipulated in the bill. The date on which the tax or fee is demanded must be construed to the date by which a person is called upon to pay and the period of three months must be construed to be the period of three months immediately thereafter. In the present case, the bill was served on 5.5.2007 and it contained a demand that payment be made by 31.8.2007. 5 Hence, the date 31.8.2007 will have to be taken as a date of demand. Hence, the payment which has been found to have been made on 2.11.2007 must be taken to be within time and it must be held that it does not attract any disqualification. There is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal which is hereby dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.