1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1420 OF 2010 (Damodar Laxmanrao Jagtap vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 19, 2010. Heard Shri Madkholkar with Shri Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Parchure, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel has raised three contentions. According to him, the impugned order passed under Section 267-A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads & Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is without jurisdiction. Secondly, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and it does not record any reasons. The third contention is, Respondent No. 2 has abdicated his powers in favour of Respondent No. 1 and acted mechanically in the matter. In this back ground, attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 111(6) and provisions of Section 83 (2) and (5) of the Act, to urge 2 that the basic scheme of the provisions is not correctly understood in the impugned order. The learned counsel states that the only requirement is of not assigning more than two Committees to any Chairman. According to him, the allotment may be of one Committee or there may not be any allotment also under the Scheme. He, therefore, states that when the majority has for valid reasons passed a particular resolution and directed a particular course of action, its implementation cannot be viewed as injurious to or against public interest. He states that only because of undue influence exercised by Respondent No. 4 under Government directions, Respondent No. 2 has invoked powers under Section 267-A of the Act and has passed the impugned order. Shri Mardikar, learned counsel, AGP as also Shri Parchure, learned counsel support the impugned action. They state that from 11.02.2009, Respondent No. 4 was Chairman in-charge of two Subject Committees viz., Education and Health. That position was sought to be changed by Resolution dated 06.03.2010 and as the position sought to be altered is contrary to the provisions of Section 83 (5) of the Act, Respondent No. 2 has rightly intervened in the matter. They argue that Respondent No. 2 has exercised his powers independently and has not acted under the influence of State Government. The learned AGP has invited attention to para 3 onwards of the reply affidavit placed before this Court 3 to urge that Respondent No. 2 has rightly noted violation of Section 83(5) of the Act, in the matter. The facts above clearly show that Respondent No. 2 has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner whose interests are affected if the resolution dated 06.03.2010 is stayed. The resolution records that it has been passed by majority of 33 votes in its favour out of total 50. In this situation, the power of suspension of that resolution and thereby restoring position not warranted by it, is exercised, which could not have been undertaken without hearing the petitioner. In view of this position, I do not find it necessary to go into the other aspects raised by Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel in the matter. The impugned order dated 20.03.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, and consequential order passed by Respondent No. 3 – Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola, (through Deputy Chief Executive Officer) on the same date are quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to appear before Respondent No. 2 – Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, on 27th April 2010 and said respondent shall decide the controversy in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The said decision shall be taken as early as possible and in any case by 14th May 2010. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to 4 costs. Needless to mention that the contentions raised by the parties are kept open for consideration at appropriate stage. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE *GS.