1 wp 5173.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5173 OF 2011 Arun S/o Tejrao Kale, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Shivna, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad. .. .. Petitioner Versus Tahsildar, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri D. R. Korde, A.G.P. for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner was issued a certificate as belonging to economically weaker section on the application made by the petitioner. The said certificate is issued by the Tahsildar i. e. the present respondent. The petitioner contested the election for the 2 wp 5173.11 managing committee of the A. P. M. C. Sillod from the reserved category i. e. economically weaker section. The candidate who has lost against the petitioner has filed election petition before the D. D. R. Aurangabad. According to the petitioner the next date in the said election petition is on 19.07.2011. The said candidate who has filed the election petition has also filed a complaint before the respondent requesting to cancel the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as belonging to economically weaker section. The Tahsildar has issued notice dated 07.07.2011 calling for the explanation within three days from the receipt of the notice. According to the petitioner the said notice is received by the petitioner on 12.07.2011. The scheduled meeting for election for the post of Chairman and Vice- Chairman is on 20.07.2011. The petitioner is directed to remain before the Tahsildar for hearing on 19.07.2011. The said notice is impugned in the present petition. 3. Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar does not have the jurisdiction to issue such a notice. The Tahsildar becomes functus officio after issuance of notice. In fact it is in the nature of order. The learned counsel submits that the Tahsildar is acting in haste. 3 wp 5173.11 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the present petition is not tenable. The explanation has been called from the petitioner and the necessary orders would be passed subsequently. The petitioner instead of filing the reply has filed the present writ petition. 5. When the notice has been given, it is expected that a reasonable time should be given for submitting the necessary explanation. Perusal of the notice, it shows that the reply is called from the petitioner by the Tahsildar within a period of three days, failing which the respondent would proceed with the inquiry about the cancellation of the certificate. The time granted is certainly not reasonable one. 6. The other arguments of the petitioner that the Tahsildar has become functus officio as there is no enabling provision in the statute empowering the Tahsildar to again initiate the inquiry according to said certificate need not be considered, as the petitioner can agitate all these points before the respondent. 7. The impugned notice need not be interfered with, except the time given to the petitioner to submit his reply/explanation. The respondent/Tahsildar shall afford the petitioner 15 days time 4 wp 5173.11 from today to submit his explanation to the notice dated 07.07.2011. The petitioner is granted 15 days time from today to submit his reply/explanation to the impugned notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 07.07.2011. The rule is accordingly made absolute with the aforesaid observations. 8. The parties to act upon the authenticated copy. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11