1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5513 OF 2009 (SAU. MANDATAI SUBHASHRAO TURKHADE...VS.. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI & (2) HARISHCHANDRA SHANKARRAO GAIGOLE.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.B.Kasat, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S.R.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri P.D. Kothari, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2010. 1. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner has been removed from the post of Member of the Panchayat Samiti by order dated 9th December, 2009 by Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati i.e. respondent No.1 after holding that her husband interfered in the work of Panchayat Samiti. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Kasat for the petitioner contends that the incidence as alleged is false and never occurred, that the place of incidence is school and it has nothing to do with the administration of the Panchayat Samiti. He contends that action is to be taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Presiding Authorities) (Removal from Office due to Misconduct) Rules, 1994. He states that the petitioner is not the Presiding Authority as defined in Section 2(23) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and in any case the procedure as 2 contemplated by Rule 3(2) read with Rule 5 thereof has not been followed. He further pointed out that the effort of respondents to apply this Rule to the petitioner because of the Government Resolution dated 17th July, 2007 is erroneous, because it does not widen the zone of disqualification and does not bring the petitioner into the scope of the above mentioned rule. 4. Advocate Shri Deshpande, as also learned A.G.P., state that because of such instances of interference into administration by relatives, Government Resolution dated 17th July, 2007 has been taken out and the relatives have been expressly prohibited from interfering in the affairs of Panchayat Samiti. The learned counsel states that the said Government Resolution expressly envisages action not only against the Presiding Authorities but also against the members of the Panchayat Samiti. 5. I find that all these questions have not been gone into respondent No.1 Additional Commissioner. Prima-facie it appears that the alleged incidence has taken place in the school premises and its impact on administration of the Panchayat Samiti, is not clear. In any case, the procedure as contemplated by Rule 5 of the above mentioned 1994 Rules has not been followed as the said rules do not confer jurisdiction upon respondent No.1 to disqualify/ remove the member. I, therefore, find it proper to keep the entire controversy open for fresh consideration by respondent No.1 after giving proper opportunity to the parties. The observations made above are only for the purpose of pointing out necessity of remand and shall not influence that authority in considering the facts coming before it. 3 6. The impugned order dated 9th December, 2009 is quashed and set aside for said purpose. The proceedings in Application No.63 (Anjangaon/ 2008-2009) are restored back to the file of respondent No.1 for taking fresh decision as early as possible and in any case by 30th April, 2010. 7. The parties shall appear before that authority on 23rd February, 2010 and shall abide by further directions of the said authority. 8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. JUDGE RR..