1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3637 OF 2008 (Gokul Yashwantrao Gawande & Ors. vs. Pandurang Laxman Dahibhat & 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. OCTOBER 14, 2008. Heard Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Chopde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondents No. 3, 4 & 5. The petitioners have been held to be disqualified for non payment of general Water tax within the stipulated period under Section 14h of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The Additional Collector, Akola, has passed the first order on 31.12.2007 and it has been maintained in appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati on 25.1.2008, thereafter in revision under Section 155 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, by the Hon'ble Minister. The contention of Shri Khapre, learned counsel is that the authorities have erroneously presumed that demand bills have been served upon the petitioners on the dates placed on its reverse 2 above the signature of petitioners or their relatives. He contends that specifically a grievance was made by the petitioners before the Block Development Officer that Gram Panchayat Secretary is not staying at Headquarter and they had not received any bills. Thereafter the bills were served and dates were inserted by the said Secretary only with oblique motive to see that the petitioners are disqualified. He states that the application was made before the Additional Collector for recording of evidence in that respect but that application was not looked into. The respective counsel for the respondents support the orders and they state that the office copies of bills reveal the signature of person receiving the same and also the date on it. Shri Khapre, learned counsel also contends that the Bill No. 53 dated 18.8.2006 served on petitioner No. 2 does not have signature of person receiving it or also the date upon it. The perusal of office copies of Bills No. 44, 53, 12 and 67 show that on reverse, there is signature of person receiving it with date. On Bill No. 44 though signature is in one direction, the date is written in other direction and also above that signature. The only question before me is whether the contention of the petitioners that they have not 3 placed date below their signatures on the reverse of the bill and dates have been inserted by somebody or Secretary of Gram Panchayat, can be accepted so as to enable them to conduct cross examination or to lead evidence. It is apparent that the petitioners had, before alleged service of these bills upon them, made representation to Assistant Collector and complained about non service of bills. It is obvious that they were guarding their interest and apprehending action for disqualification. This representation is dated 13.07.2007 and mentions that bills dated 16.08.2006 and 17.08.2006 were received by few villagers on 25.5.2007. Petitioners however, in petition state that they made payments in November, 2006 though bills were not received by them. In these circumstances, why when the bills were served, they have not put the date, is not understood. If elected Ward members/ Up-Sarpanch and Sarpanch are permitted to come up with such plea, it would be difficult to implement the provisions of disqualification in any case. Being responsible officers, it was expected of the petitioners to put date and they cannot take advantage of the fact that the date is not put by 4 them on these bills. The Assistant Collector had called for the report and after verifying that report and going through records, the orders have been passed in all these cases. It is apparent that payments have been made after expiry of 90 days of the last date of the payment, mentioned in those demands. I, therefore, find that in these circumstances, the request to adduce evidence or to take cognizance of alleged tampering cannot be entertained. I do not find any merit in the petition. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.