( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 482 OF 2010 Sau. Latabai Bhaurao Patil, R/o Vol, Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 2. Additional Collector, Jalgaon. 3. The Tahsildar, Pachora, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Gramsevak, Gram Panchayat, Vol, Tq. Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon. 5. Sau. Alkabai Rohidas Solashe 6. Sanjay Ramdas Patil 7. Shravan Gangaram Patil 8. Sunandabai Shantaram Patil 9. Kishor Laxman Chaudhari 10. Yuvraj Jayram Gaikwad All r/o Vol, Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon.. 11. Mangala Pandurang Patil RESPONDENTS (Name of this respondent is deleted as per order dated 05-03-2010) ..... Mr. G.V. Wani, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. D.B. Thoke, advocate for respondents No. 5 to 9. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th May, 2010] ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik in appeal No. 104/2009 and Additional Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute Application No. 34/2009 whereby and whereunder objection raised by the petitioner to the No Confidence resolution was turned down. 3. The petitioner is Sarpanch of village panchayat, Vol. A No Confidence Motion was moved against her. The No Confidence Motion was scheduled for deliberation and consideration by the members in a meeting dated 22nd August, 2009. The petitioner was not personally served with the notice of the meeting. Allegedly, a copy of the notice was affixed on the door of house where she was residing at the relevant time as a tenant, situated in another village i.e. Nagar-Deola. A panchanama about the affixing of the notice on the door of that house was drawn. Out of seven (7) members, five (5) members voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion ( 3 ) and, therefore, it was held as duly passed. The petitioner filed dispute under section 35 (3) (b) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short, “the BVP Act”). The learned Additional Collector held that the objection raised by the petitioner was untenable. The objection was, therefore, rejected. The order has been confirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division. Hence, the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 5. The short question which the Additional Collector was called upon to decide is as to whether, in fact, the petitioner was residing in the tenanted premises at village Nagar-Deola and that the notice of the meeting was duly affixed on the door of that tenanted premises. It appears that on first available opportunity, the petitioner submitted application (Exh-G) seeking permission to call the panch witnesses who had signed the panchanama regarding service of the notice. She alleged that the panchanama was false and fabricated. She alternatively submitted that if such request is not acceptable, then she may be given one opportunity to ( 4 ) file affidavits of those panchas. The application dated 24-09-2009 was rejected by the learned Additional Collector for the reason that the petitioner ought to have filed those affidavits of the panchas before filing of such application and since the dispute was to be decided within fifteen (15) days, the application was liable to be rejected. So, it was rejected. 6. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner had made alternate prayer to allow her to file affidavits of those panch witnesses in case they were not to be summoned. She could have been granted such opportunity by giving a couple of days time to file their affidavits. That was not done. It is true that expeditious decision of the dispute is necessary. At the same time, rights of the petitioner could not be scuttled in the manner so done by the learned Additional Collector. The petitioner was ready and willing to file affidavits of those panchas in case the party was not willing to summon them. It would have been reasonable to give her atleast a couple of days time instead of rejecting the application. The copy of rojnama shows that on the very same day, the arguments were heard and the matter was reserved for decision. It appears from the copy of rojnama that on 7th ( 5 ) September, 2009, first day of appearance was given, but the learned Additional Collector was on leave on that date and, therefore, another date was scheduled. The matter was posted on 14th September, 2009. The learned Additional Collector was on leave on that given date and, therefore, it was scheduled on 24th September, 2009. Thus, on the very first date, when the learned Additional Collector decided to effectively hear the matter, the petitioner had submitted her application for either summoning of the panchas or allowing her to file their affidavits. The learned Additional Collector did not consider the fact that on earlier two dates, he was unable to take up the matter and it was improper to hastily decide the dispute in a single day without giving appropriate opportunity to the petitioner. The learned Additional Commissioner seems to have overlooked the manner in which the enquiry was held by the Additional Collector. In my opinion, the petitioner should have been given due opportunity to establish her contention that the panchanama about service of the notice by affixing the same on the door of the house was untrue. It is not necessary to say anything about merits of the objection petition. 7. Considering the deficiency noticed as above, it ( 6 ) would be necessary to remit the matter to the Additional Collector for de novo enquiry. Taking overall view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner are set aside. The dispute application No. 34/2009 is restored to its original position, with the direction to give the petitioner due opportunity to file affidavits of the concerned panchas of the panchanama regarding service of the notice and to file any documentary evidence as she may desire to produce before the Additional Collector, if so filed, within period of three (3) weeks from today. The petitioner shall appear before the Additional Collector on 18th May, 2010. It is made clear that she shall file affidavits of the panch witnesses, if so are to be filed on 18th May, 2010, or at the most within a week thereafter and the dispute shall be decided before 30th May, 2010. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 8. The parties may act on copy of this judgement and order, duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp482-2010