1 wp634.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 634 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel with Mr. E.G. Irale, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent no.5 Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. 1. Heard Senior Advocate Mr. Dixit with Advocate Mr. Irale for the petitioners, Advocate Mr. M.B. Kolpe for respondent no.5 and Mrs. V.A.Shinde, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. 2. Short contention is, Enquiry under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 has not been conducted by the Chief Executive Officer and hence it is vitiated. Action of removal of petitioners in pursuance of such enquiry is unsustainable. The support is being taken of the judgment of Single Judge reported at "2002(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 944" ( Nimba Yadav Bhoi V/s President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad and others). 2 wp634.11 Learned Senior Advocate points out that there the Chief Executive Officer had asked Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti to hold the enquiry and further action was taken on the basis of that report. 3. Shri Kolpe as well as learned A.G.P. rely upon the proceedings dated 23.02.2010 conducted by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Latur and the subsequent report dated 11.05.2010 submitted by him to Divisional Commissioner. 4. Perusal of these two documents show that Chief Executive Officer has after receipt of the report from the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ahmedpur issued notices to all petitioners and has heard them personally on 23.02.2010. The petitioners then admitted that there was resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat to cut the trees of social forestry and later on it has been stated that the resolution was about cutting dried trees. Gram Sevak informed the members that such resolution could not have been passed. The Chief Executive Officer then also asked whether the persons present before him had anything more to add and respective persons declined to say anything more. Thereafter, the report has been prepared and forwarded by Chief Executive Officer. 5. In the reported judgment after receipt of the report of Block Development Officer, Yawal dated 12.05.2010, 3 wp634.11 the Chief Executive Officer issued show-cause notice to the petitioner-Nimba and after receipt of reply of that petitioner on 15 June, 2000, the action was taken by Standing Committee on 15th July, 2000. The Standing Committee resolved to remove Nimba from the post of Sarpanch. This was then followed by order dated 20th July, 2000 seeking to remove him. It is therefore obvious, that the Chief Executive Officer did not extend any opportunity to that petitioner-Nimba. There was no report prepared by the Chief Executive Officer. 6. Here, the Chief Executive Officer did call for the report from the Block Development Officer but he did not act upon the same and gave opportunity to petitioners for filing Say. The petitioners were heard and their Say has been considered and thereafter the separate report of his own has been submitted by the Chief Executive Officer on 23.01.2010. I find above judgment of Single Judge not applicable. 7. In the circumstances, no case has been made out warranting interference. Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 27.01.2011 gas/wp634.11