1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4868 OF 2010 (Ajay Ramdas Harode vs. The Commissioner, Nagpur & 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. DECEMBER 07, 2010. This Court has issued notice for final disposal and directed parties to maintain status quo as on 06.10.2010 in the meanwhile. Heard Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Raut, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 7. Respondents No. 4 to 7 have not assisted this Court in any way. The short contention of Shri Kilor, learned counsel is disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is attracted only when it is demonstrated that the petitioner – Sarpanch has got some interest in work or contract being executed as per orders of Gram Panchayat. According to learned counsel, though the findings recorded against the petitioner and adverse to him are not correct, still for the 2 purposes of Section 14(1)(g) of the Act, those findings are not sufficient and action for disqualification, therefore, is unsustainable. The learned counsel argues that those allegations may show some other irregularity or wrong but then again cannot attract disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act. He also points out that for same allegations, an independent application under Section 39(1) of the Act is already filed by the same Respondent No. 3. Shri Sambre, learned counsel has relied upon the findings recorded by Respondent No. 1 – Commissioner, Nagpur in appeal to urge that said authority has found that the petitioner has invested his own amount in construction work and that investment is with a view to obtain some benefit in future. The learned counsel states that Gram Panchayat has no funds with it and still the work of construction is going on. He points out that those findings are based upon the report prepared by Block Development Officer (BDO) and that report shows absence of any resolution of Gram Panchayat approving the site for construction, calling tenders for construction, any contract with independent contractor for said construction. The learned counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of writ petition. He further states that the proceedings under Section 39 of the Act are for totally different cause. Shri Fulzele, learned AGP supports the impugned order. 3 Shri Raut, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 7 sought time after the arguments were concluded by Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and therefore, his request was rejected. The material on record prima facie shows that there is no resolution by Gram Panchayat approving the site at which the work of construction under Golden Jubilee Employment Scheme has been undertaken. The impugned order passed by the Collector, Nagpur, records that there was no enquiry about the site and there is alteration or modification in all three resolutions. Objection about quorum was raised in Gram Sabha dated 25.03.2008 and the proceedings are not signed by the President of the Meeting and, therefore, there is no approval of the Gram Sabha. It is also recorded that site was fixed by taking subject for discussion without mentioning it on agenda at eleventh hour. Gram Panchayat did not have funds and construction was started without calling for tenders. The Store Register at eight pages bear signature only of the petitioner and there is no labour contract on record. The Commissioner, Nagpur, in petitioner's appeal has further drawn an inference that construction was started by the petitioner at his own level and by investing his own amount. It is also noted that though there is no misappropriation, the position emerging after receipt of grants is unpredictable. 4 The alleged report prepared by BDO is not filed by the petitioner before this Court. The effort of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to show that there are valid resolutions. However, there is nothing on record to show that Gram Panchayat had funds or Gram Panchayat has made payment to labour from time to time. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that amount for expenditure was received from the Central Government and that amount of Rs.1,50 lakh (part payment) was taken back because of this dispute. Even if the irregularities found by the Commissioner and Collector are looked into, the same appear to be serious. Whether the petitioner has interest in the matter and if the amount of grant has gone back, who has paid for construction, are the questions which ought to have been answered by the Collector and Commissioner. Those questions are not gone into. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored back to the file of Collector, Nagpur, for taking fresh decision in the matter to find out who is spending for the construction work and how the expenditure is being accounted for. On the basis of said material and after giving parties appropriate opportunity in this respect, Respondent No. 2 – Collector, Nagpur, shall pass appropriate final orders in 5 the matter. As the matter pertains to the year 2008-09 and issue raised is serious, Respondent No. 2 – Collector, Nagpur, shall attempt to decide the matter finally as early as possible and in any case by 28th February 2011. The parties to appear before that authority on 22nd December 2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Sambre, learned counsel points out that the present petitioner is not Sarpanch and this Court has only directed maintenance of status quo. In the circumstances, status quo as on today shall continue till the Collector, Nagpur, decides the matter expeditiously. JUDGE *GS.