1 W.P.No.1733/07 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1733 OF 2007. 1. Smt.Savitribai Sheshrao Gangane, Age 40 years, Occ.Member, Grampanchayat Kandari Partur, Tq.Ghansavangi, Dist.Jalna. 2. Smt.Aruna Rangnathrao Kakade, Age 36 years, Occ.Member, Grampanchayat Kandari Partur, Tq. Ghansavangi, Dist.Jalna. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist.Aurangabad. 2. The President, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. 4. The Village Panchayat, Kandari Partur, Tq. Ghansavangi, Dist.Jalna, through it's Gramsevak. 5. Dnyanoba Rama Dudhkar, Age major, Occ.Agri., 2 W.P.No.1733/07 R/o Kandari Partur, Tq. Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna. 6. Pundlik Limbaji Kakade, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o as above. 7. Sakharam Babasaheb Kakade, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o as above. 8. Smt.Dropadabai Tukaram Kakade, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o as above. ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.A.S.Deshpande, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.M.S.Kokate, advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr.R.J.Nirmal, advocate for the Respondent No.6. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.07.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is disqualified U/s 40 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, by the 3 W.P.No.1733/07 orders of the President dated 20.12.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner on 9.1.2007. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal holding that it is barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.M.P.Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner committed an error in rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation. The period of limitation shall have to be counted from the date of intimation of the order. The words 'from the date of order' shall have to be interpreted as 'from the date of communication of the order'. For the said purpose, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Shri Tularam Govinda Bhogare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" reported in 2004 (3) ALL MR 167. 4. Mr.A.B.Kale, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on instructions from the Respondent No.2 accepts the fact that no date was 4 W.P.No.1733/07 given for passing the order and the order disqualifying the petitioner was communicated vide intimation dated 6.1.2007. 5. The appeal is filed on 9.1.2007 i.e. within three (3) days of the communication of the order disqualifying the petitioner. 6. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Shri Tularam Govinda Bhogare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" referred supra, it will have to be held that "from the date of order" is to be interpreted as from the date of communication of the order and as such the appeal filed before the Commissioner will have to be held within limitation. 7. In the result, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for decision afresh on merits. 8. Rule made accordingly absolute. 5 W.P.No.1733/07 However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp1733.07