1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2892 OF 2010 (Sau. Manjulabai Pandurang Chimankar vs. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 29, 2010. The matter is listed today for the first time before the Court. I have heard Shri Gordey, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Kadu, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 with consent finally. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Advocate seeks leave to delete Respondent No. 3. Leave granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. The short contention of Shri Gordey, learned Senior Advocate is, under Section 14(1)(g)of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), interest of husband of the petitioner in work of Gram Panchayat needs to be demonstrated. He invites attention to application as filed by Respondent No. 4 to show that there is no such allegation of any interest and he further argues that even though the case of misappropriation is sought to be pleaded, those allegations are also vague and lack in material particulars. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in 2 the case of Jyotitai vs. Additional Commissioner, reported at 2009 (5) Mh. L.J. 486, in support of his contention. He further points out that the Additional Commissioner has in appeal recorded a finding that amount withdrawn from Bank account has been utilized fully for the work of Gram Panchayat. He has, therefore, proceeded further and found the order of the Collector impugned before him to be correct because the withdrawal of amount from Bank account was by husband of the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that this is not sufficient to constitute interest to attract disqualification. Shri Kadu, learned counsel supports the impugned order. He invites attention to findings recorded by the Additional Collector and also by Additional Commissioner concurrently to show that the financial dealings with Gram Panchayat are held to disqualify the petitioner. According to him, the said finding is neither erroneous nor perverse. Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP also states that as the husband of the petitioner is found to be having unauthorized financial deals with Gram Panchayat, the disqualification of the petitioner should not be interfered with. As pointed out by the Senior Advocate, I find that there was earlier an enquiry into the matter by Project Director, District Rural Development Agency and in that enquiry it was found that the total amount of Rs.2,13,155/- was withdrawn in the name of seven 3 persons and it was all spent on the scheme. It appears that this report was based upon the submission of the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. However, here neither Additional Collector nor Additional Commissioner have found that there is any misappropriation. They have found that total three cheques were drawn in the name of husband of the petitioner but then it is also noticed by the Additional Commissioner that amount withdrawn under those cheques was fully utilized for Gram Panchayat purposes. Thus, there is no finding of any misappropriation. The question, therefore, is whether action of Secretary of Gram Panchayat in issuing cheques in the name of husband of the petitioner itself can be viewed as manifestation of interest contemplated by Section 14(1)(g) of the Act. The provisions of said section are very clear and it has to be shown that the petitioner has directly or indirectly, by herself or her partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat, or any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under the Panchayat. The application as filed only states that there are withdrawals from the Bank account and amount has been misappropriated. Interest as envisaged by said clause has not been pleaded. Not only this, though both authorities have considered the aspect, such interest has not been brought on record. The finding that entire amount is spent on Gram Panchayat works is not in dispute and it is apparent that there is no 4 misappropriation. The amount withdrawn was handed over to Gram Panchayat and has been accounted for. I, therefore, find that the authorities have overlooked this aspect of interest in the matter and has arrived at erroneous finding. The judgment of this Court in Jyotitai vs. Additional Commissioner, (supra) considers this aspect and interprets provisions of Section 14(1)(g) of the Act. There also the husband of the Jyotitai had withdrawn the amount of some cheques. Facts there are identical and findings recorded in paras 5 & 9 of the report are relevant. Shri Kadu, learned counsel during the course of arguments, without prejudice to his contentions, requested that Respondent No. 4 should be given liberty to file appropriate proceedings in the matter. If any forum is available to Respondent No. 4, it is open to him to invoke its jurisdiction in accordance with law. The impugned orders dated 26.05.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner and order dated 07.03.2009 passed by the Additional Collector are hereby quashed and set aside. The application filed by Respondent No. 4 under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act before Respondent No. 2 is also rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed by making rule absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.