1 W.P. No.944 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.944 Of 2011 * Avinash S/o Anantrao Jadhavar, Age 33 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o Ratnapur, Taluka Kallam District Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. Versus 1) Eknath S/o Atmaram Tekale, Age Major, Occupation : agriculture, R/o Ratnapur, Taluka Kallam, District Osmanabad. 2) Tanaji S/o Bhagwat Tekale, Age Major, Occupation : agriculture R/o As above. 3) The Grampanchayat, Ratnapur, Taluka Kallam, District Osmanabad Through its Gramsevak. 4) The Returning Officer, for the elections of Grampanchayat, Ratnapur, Taluka Kallam District Osmanabad Shri. L.G. Giri, Superintendent of Panchayat Samiti, Washi, Taluka Washi, District Osmanabad. 5) The Additional Collector, Osmanabad, District Osmanabad. .. Respondents. 2 W.P. No.944 of 2011 Shri. Santosh S Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.J. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate, holding for Shri. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Shri. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL, J. DATE 3rd OCTOBER 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard. 2) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of the counsel for the parties taken up for final disposal. 3) The petitioner is an elected member of Ratnapur Gram Panchayat. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 raised challenge to the election of the petitioner by filing an application under section 14 read with section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act,1958. The Additional Collector by an order dated 30th March 2010 refused to entertain the application. Aggrieved by the said order, 3 W.P. No.944 of 2011 respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. By an order dated 10-12-2010 the Additional Commissioner condoned delay without hearing the petitioner and thereafter issued notice to the respondent by calling record. The hearing of the case was fixed on 19th January 2011. The petitioner has challenged the said order. By an order dated 9th February 2011 interim stay was granted staying further proceedings. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Commissioner committed error in condoning delay without issuing notice to the contesting respondents. Law of limitation is not applicable to the proceedings initiated before the Additional Commissioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments in (1) Prabhakar Sabaji Kandalkar v. Tahsildar, Sangamner, 2002 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 548, and (2) Sakuru v. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279. 5) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has referred to the order dated 10th August 2010 passed 4 W.P. No.944 of 2011 in Writ Petition No.2329 of 2010. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had applied for certified copy of the order passed by the Additional Collector and after getting the same appeal was preferred. The delay was unintentional which occurred due to the fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not receive certified copy in time. 6) On the face of the record it is clear that present petitioner, respondent before the Additional Commissioner was not noticed prior to the order passed condoning delay. The Additional Commissioner thereby committed error in condoning delay of 104 days without notice to the petitioner. On this ground alone I am inclined to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Additional Commissioner. The parties are at liberty to raise appropriate pleas before the Additional Commissioner. All issues are kept open. 7) The order dated 10-12-2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Case No.DB-D-2-ZPVP-A-CR-40-2010 is 5 W.P. No.944 of 2011 quashed and set aside. the matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner shall pass appropriate order on the application for condonation of delay within four weeks from date of receipt of the order. Parties undertake to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 12th October 2011. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl