1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7643 OF 2008 Pandurang S/o Dagdu Mane, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Kerhala, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. Smt. Sofia Sk. Budhan, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Kerhala, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri A. P. Phatale, Advocate h/f Shri D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. P. Phatake, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. 2 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner challenges order dated 21.05.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad in file No. DB/Desk-2/ZPVP/Application/CR/149/07, on the ground that in view of provisions of Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, the commissioner is empowered to hear and decide the petitions under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The Commissioner had partly decided the petition. The petitioner therefore, raised ground that the Commissioner had answered one issue and in respect of remaining the Commissioner directed the Chief Executive Officer to pass an appropriate order by taking into consideration the original record of the grampanchayat. 3. Learned counsel Shri Thombre submitted that the Commissioner had in fact addressed the issues and directed the 3 Chief Executive Officer to go through the record, conduct the inquiry and thereafter take a decision. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also supported the order of the Commissioner. 5. On reading the provisions of Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, we find that under the law it is the Commissioner who is empowered to decide a petition filed under Section 39(1). The power cannot be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad. The Commissioner has to address the issues raised by the complainant and decide the petition. 6. In the facts of the case, we find that act of the Commissioner in delegating his power to the Chief Executive Officer was not reasonable, proper and legal. The Commissioner shall decide the complaint/objection petition filed under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act on its own merits. The matter is required to be remanded back to the Commissioner. The impugned order is set aside. 4 7. The Commissioner shall deal with the issues and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and submissions of the parties. All the points are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 8. The Commissioner shall pass final orders within three months from today. Both the parties undertake to co-operate with the Commissioner in final disposal of the matter. The complainant and respondent shall appear before the Commissioner on 12th April, 2010, at 11.00 a.m. Needless to mention that the Commissioner is entitled to go through the original record and proceeding of the Gram Panchayat and deal with the issues accordingly. The Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10