1 W.P.Nos.6228-6252.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6228 OF 2010 Mahendra Krishna Patil & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Sou.Meenakshi Prabhakar Patil & ors. ... Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6252 OF 2010 Mahendra Krishna Patil & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Sou.Aparna Bipin Dhumal & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.S.Pakale i/by Kirankumar J. Phakade for the petitioners in both petitions. Mr.P.S.Dani for respondent No.1 in both petitions. Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.7 to 9 in both petitions. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: 1. The writ petition being Writ Petition No.6228 of 2010 2 W.P.Nos.6228-6252.10 has been filed to challenge the election of the Sarpanch and Writ Petition No.6252 has been filed to challenge the election of the Up-Sarpanch of the Group Gram Panchayat of the Shahapur, Alibag-Raigad. Both these petitions have been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner who has remanded the proceedings back to the Collector. According to the petitioners, the no confidence motion was passed against respondent No.1 in both the petitions. Both the Sarpanch and the Up-Sarpanch were removed from office by a 2/3 majority. Being aggrieved by the procedure adopted when the no confidence motion was passed, respondent No.1 in each of the petition, filed a dispute before the Collector, Alibaug, Raigad. The disputes were dismissed by the Collector by separate orders on the ground that they had been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. He also observed that the motion was moved by a 1/3 majority and had been passed by a 2/3 majority of the Panchayat. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, respondent No.1 in each of the petitions moved the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in appeals. Those appeals were allowed and the Additional Commissioner remanded the disputes to the Collector by observing that the disputes had been filed within the period of limitation. 3 W.P.Nos.6228-6252.10 3. In my opinion, there is no need to disturb these findings of the Additional Commissioner. Mr. Pakale appearing for the petitioners in these petitions has argued that there is no need to remand the matters when the Collector had observed that the motion had been moved by a 1/3 majority of the members and that it has been passed by a 2/3 majority. He concedes that the dispute had been filed within the period of limitation. 4. From the material on record before me it is apparent that respondent No.1 has raised several issues in the disputes. These issues have not been addressed by the Collector only because he found that the disputes were barred by limitation. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner has rightly remanded the dispute for fresh hearing by observing that the disputes have been filed within the period of limitation. 5. No case for interference has been made out by the petitioners. 6. Both writ petitions rejected. 7. Since the disputes have been remanded to the Collector, the elected Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch will not take any policy decisions till the disputes are decided. ..... 4 W.P.Nos.6228-6252.10 5 W.P.Nos.6228-6252.10