(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10196 OF 2010 1. Chandrakala w/o. Sitaram Pote, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Sarpanch, R/o. Tingandwadi, Gram Panchayat, Chikhli (Kh.), Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. 2. Bhiku s/o. Rupsing Pawar, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Sarpanch, R/o. Tingandwadi, Gram Panchayat, Chikhli (Kh.), Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. 3. Shakuntala w/o. Satwaji Deshmukhe, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Gram Panchayat Member, R/o. Tingandwadi, Gram Panchayat, Chikhli (Kh.), Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. 4. Sumanbai w/o. Ramrao Jadhav, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Gram Panchayat Member, R/o. Tingandwadi, Gram Panchayat, Chikhli (Kh.), Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. .. Petitioners. versus (2) 1. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 2. The Additional Collector, Nanded, District : Nanded. 3. Namdeo Kondiba Gaike, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Tingandwadi, Gram Panchayat Chikhli (Kh.), Taluka : Kinwat, Dist. : Nanded. 4. Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Kinwat, Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. Respondent no.3 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 (3) ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. D.P. Palodkar, for the petitioners, and learned AGP Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. 2. Nobody appears for respondent no.3, though he was served with notice with an intimation that the petition is likely to be disposed of at admission stage. There was no appearance on 3-2-2011 and hence one chance was given to him to appear and contest. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 4. Adv. Mr. Palodkar, for the petitioners, points out that on 22-9-2010, there was already holiday on account of "Anant Chaturdashi". Hence matter was adjourned to 13-10-2010. Accordingly, respondent no.3 had also signed order sheet and noted next date. But later on, by a short order, Additional Commissioner proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner on the very same day. 5. Learned AGP Mr. Ghute Patil, for respondent nos.1, (4) 2 and 4, states that there must have been some genuine error resulting in such situation. 6. It is not necessary for this Court to go into merits of the controversy. The order sheet specifically states that the matter was adjourned for hearing to 13-10-2010. Hence orders could not have been passed on 22-9-2010. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-9-2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Case No. DB/Desk-2/ZPVP/A/CR-231/08, is quashed and set aside. The said proceedings are restored back to the file of Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, i.e. respondent no.1, for taking fresh decision in accordance with law and as early as possible. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10196