- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4220 OF 2010 Sou.Seema Chintaman Dhondekar ..Petitioner vs The Returning Officer & ors ... Respondents Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for Petitioner Mr.Irfan Shaikh for Respt no.2 Mr.Atul Damle for Respt no.3 Mr.P.M.Khemani AGP for Respt no.5. CORAM: R.M.SAVANT & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ (Vacation Court) DATE: 14th May,2010 P.C. 1. This petition is filed challenging against the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner for the ensuing Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation Elections. The scrutiny of the nominations was held on 11.5.2010 on which day, the petitioner was present before the Returning Officer. At the time of scrutiny of the petitioner’s nomination, an objection was taken by the respondent no. 4 that the petitioner was ineligible to contest the said elections in view of - 2 - the fact that she was a defaulter in payment of taxes. On being questioned, the petitioner admitted to the said fact which has been recorded in the order of the Returning Officer which is impugned in the petition. 2. The Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation is to be newly constituted and therefore, elections are being held for the first time. Prior to the establishment of the Municipal Corporation, there were Municipal councils and gram panchayats which were exercising powers under the relevant statutes in their respective jurisdictions. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner’s house is within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Naigaon. The petitioner’s husband had been issued a bill for payment of house tax amounting to Rs.368/- on 4.6.2009 by the said Panchayat. Admittedly, the said amount was remained to be paid and was paid only on 11.5.2010 when the scrutiny of the nominations took place and hence for the said reasons, the petitioner had admitted before the Returning Officer that she was a defaulter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would - 3 - contend that the petitioner who is the wife has to be defaulter herself and the default of the husband cannot be fastened on her. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner on the said ground therefore,cannot be sustained. The said argument cannot be countenanced for two fold reasons. Firstly, the State Government by a Circular dated 20.11.2003 has inter alia directed that the houses within the jurisdiction of a gram panchayat should be entered in the names of both the husband and the wife. Secondly, considering the fact that the petitioner was a resident of an area which is in the jurisdiction of Naigaon gram panchayat in terms of section 124 sub-section 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act both the owner and occupier are liable for the payment of property tax. The said provision had come up for interpretation before a Division Bench of this court in the case of SK.SANDHU SK.NATHU & ORS vs. PIRJADE IQBALUDDIN ZIAUDDIN & ors 1988 (4) Bom.C.R.241 in which case the default of the father was sought to be fastened on the son. This court in the context of section 124 (2) of the said Bombay Village Panchayat Act, held that the son - 4 - being an occupier of the house in question the tax in question was leviable on him also however, the disqualification contemplated by the second part of clause (ii) of Explanation to section 14 would not be attracted on mere joint residence,unless such joint residence was pursuant to any custom prevailing among the members of the particular group or units. In the fact situation of the said case, the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division that the joint residence of the respondent no. 1 with the father was not proved. However, in the instant case, the petitioner is the wife of the person in whose name the demand for property tax was made by the Gram Panchayat there is therefore no question of proving joint residence and therefore, in the context of section 124 (2) the petitioner can be said to be a defaulter. 4. Another reason why the said submission cannot be countenanced is the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the order on the said ground in the petition but, only in the course of arguments the said submission was sought to be made. Implicit in this fact is the acceptance by the petitioner that - 5 - she is a defaulter, if one is to consider it in the context of the admission of the petitioner before the Returning Officer. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the above petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J R.M.SAVANT, J - 6 -