1 wp 6856.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6856 OF 2011 Hiraman S/o Chandrabhan Kadam, Age : 49 Years, Occu. : Labour, R/o Pathre (Bk), Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Arun S/o Laxman Kadam, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Patre (Bk), Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. The Gram Panchayat Pathre (Bk), Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Gram Sevak. .. Respondents Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri R. P. Phatake, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent/State. Shri D. R. Markad, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. S. Bhadakh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. 2 wp 6856.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner was elected as member of Gram Panchayat. He failed to submit the validity certificate within the stipulated period. The present respondent No. 2 moved an application purportedly U/Sec. 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The same was earlier rejected. Thereafter, a fresh application was submitted by the respondent No. 2. The same came to be allowed. The said order is assailed in the present petition. 3. Shri Hon, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said proceedings were decided without the say of the present petitioner. Even on the date i. e. 25 th August, 2011 the petitioner and his advocate could not enter the Collector’s Office, because of the mob. The learned counsel contends that even otherwise the said provision directing the member of Gram Panchayat to produce validity within stipulated time is held to be not valid. The learned counsel submits that as the proceedings were decided without hearing the petitioner, the said order is illegal, null and void. The learned counsel further contends that 3 wp 6856.11 even on the date when proceedings were decided, the petitioner’s caste certificate was validated by the competent authority. But the said certificate was not dispatched. The judgment of the Collector is dated 29 th August, 2011, whereas the validity certificate has been issued to the petitioner on 02 nd June, 2011. 4. Shri Markad, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that, the petitioner is guilty of filing false affidavit as the proposal for validity certificate was not submitted within the stipulated period, the petitioner stood disqualified from being member of Gram Panchayat. According to the learned counsel ample opportunity was given to the petitioner. 5. I have gone through the order. The order does not show that the petitioner had filed any say and that the arguments were considered. The Collector has not even taken into consideration the fact of rejection of the earlier application. The Collector will be required to dilate on the same. Even he has to consider the fact of validity certificate having been already issued in favour of the petitioner. In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the parties are relegated before the Additional Collector, who shall decide the 4 wp 6856.11 said proceedings afresh. 6. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar shall decide the said proceedings afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to put forth their case. All the points are kept open. The parties shall appear before the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar on 10 th October, 2011. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. 7. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar shall decide the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three (3) months. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11