0208wp2885.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2885 of 2011. Smt.Shamila V.Lanjewar ..vs.. State of Mah. 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.B.Bambal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.2. Smt.M.P.Munshi, Adv. for respondent no.3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 2nd August, 2011. 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 7/6/2011 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Hon’ble Minister of State for Rural Development, State of Maharashtra, by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner came to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Dawadipar, Tq. and Distt.Bhandara. A complaint was made by one Ajijuddin Tare Pathan, who was the Upasarpanch, and four other members of the said Grampanchayat. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner was that she had changed the resolution passed by the majority of the Grampanchayat members, 0208wp2885.11.odt 2 and that the 5% of the amount, which is to be deposited in the village development fund, has not been so deposited by the petitioner out of the fund received for development. In terms of Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, the Chief Executive Officer has to submit a report to the Additional Commissioner in respect of the enquiry that he has to carry out as regards the allegations made. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer had called for some inputs from the Block Development Officer and other Officers of the Zilla Parishad and thereafter by giving an opportunity to the petitioner in respect of material that was received in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer had submitted the report. The said report was taken into consideration by the Additional Commissioner who has been delegated the powers under Section 39 of the said Act by the Commissioner and by the first impugned order dated 18/1/2011, the Additional Commissioner recorded a finding against the petitioner as regards the said two charges and came to a conclusion that the petitioner stands disqualified under Section 39 of the said Act. The Additional Commissioner has recorded a specific finding in respect of the Resolution, which was changed by the petitioner as also as regards the non-deposit of 5% of the amount deducted from the development fund in the village fund. 3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner allowing the application filed by the said complainants, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Hon’ble Minister under Section 39(c)(3) of the said Act. The Appellate Authority heard all the parties and thereafter by the second impugned order dated 7/6/2011 has confirmed the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner. 0208wp2885.11.odt 3 The Appellate Authority has dealt with the two issues which were sought to be raised before it by the petitioner namely; the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to try the proceedings under Section 39 of the said Act and the issue as regards whether the report was submitted by the Chief Executive Officer or not. As indicated above, the Appellate Authority has by the second impugned order dismissed the Appeal. 4. It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2002(3) Mh.L.J.466 in the matter of Nimba Yadav Bhoi ..vs.. President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and ors. that the Chief Executive Officer could not have delegated the powers of enquiry that is vested in him under the said Section to any other Officer. It is further contended that though various issues were sought to be raised in the Appeal, the Appellate Authority has not dealt with the said issues. In my view, the said contentions are totally misconceived. On a reading of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the said order ex facie discloses that both the issues have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority in its order. In so far as the issue as regards jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner is concerned, the Appellate Authority has recorded the statement of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad that the powers have been delegated and in so far as issue as regards the enquiry by the Chief Executive Officer is concerned, the Appellate Authority in term observed that the Chief Executive Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry and after hearing the petitioner has submitted its report. No other issue seems to have been raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority as also in the instant petition. 0208wp2885.11.odt 4 5. Having considered the orders passed by both the authorities, I do not find any illegality or infirmity or any error of jurisdiction committed by both the Authorities for this court to interfere in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE chute