1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MCA NO.200/2011 (FOR REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO.2846/2009 (D) [Mobel Gramin India Private Limited .vrs. Zilla Parishad, Akola and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : JULY 01, 2011. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, Shri A.P. Tathod, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri S.D. Chopde, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Contention of Advocate Shri Chandurkar is that while allowing writ petition preferred by the present applicant against the order of standing committee dated 4.6.2009, this court has also set aside the order of lower authority dated 26.4.2007 which operated in favour of the applicant/petitioner. In addition to this, he has invited attention to the fact that said appeal to standing committee was preferred by the Sarpanch and at the time of its adjudication, the said Sarpanch was the Vice President of the Zilla Parishad and, therefore, in that capacity, was a member of Standing Committee. This Standing 2 Committee, as a second appellate authority, has allowed that appeal. He further points out that appeal was beyond limitation and specific objection in that respect was raised but that objection has not been decided. According to Advocate Shri Tathod and Advocate Shri Chopde for respective respondents, this court has found that when Block Development Officer (first appellate authority) passed the order on 26.4.2007, Respondent no.4 in writ petition namely Gram Panchayat was not heard and hence this court found it proper to place the matter before the first appellate authority. In the light of respective arguments, I have perused the order dated 21.1.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.2846/2009 by me. Then this court has found that the question of applicability of particular provision relating to levy of tax needed to be looked into after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Admittedly, respondent no.4 did not get that opportunity before the first appellate authority. It has been noticed that respondent no.4 Gram Panchayat had demanded total amount of Rs.17,09,920/- as tax for the period from 2005 to 2007 and this demand formed the subject matter of dispute in appeal before Block Development Officer. Therefore, this court 3 directed the petitioner before it (present applicant) to deposit total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lac only) after adjusting an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lac only) already deposited by it and then directed the appellate authority to proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously. It is in this background that order dated 26.4.2007 has been quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, apparent that after recording necessary reasons, this court has found it necessary to give opportunity of hearing to both the sides and, therefore, the order dated 26.4.2007 has been quashed and set aside. The prayer for review is, therefore, misconceived. The application is rejected. Non-Applicant No.2 – Block Development Officer shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months, after the parties appear before him. Parties are directed to appear before non-applicant no.2 – BDO on 25.7.2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. Party succeeding shall be entitled to withdraw amount in deposit with the registry of this court. JUDGE Gulande