-1- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 3310/2008. ( Suresh Narayan Tathod -versus- The Addl. Commissioner ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2008. Heard Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Advocate Shri P.A. Kadu, for respondent no.3. Grievance of Advocate Saboo is that only because there was no clear three days notice of election, the petitioners election as Sarpanch has been set aside. He points out that respondent no.3 willingly participated in the entire process right upto the stage of drawing of ishwar chitti and after the result of ishwar chiitt came in favour of the petitioner the objection has been raised. According to him, respondent no.3 has taken a chance of election in his favour and also has waived -2- requirement of three days notice. He further argues that in any case, no prejudice has been pointed out. He further states that whether appeal as filed before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, was maintainable was one of the questions in view of the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Armaram Chapa Sandanshiv .vrs. Shambhadbi Bashir Shah Fakir ( 2008 [3] Mh.L.J. 906). He further fairly states that this Court has referred correctness or otherwise of the view expressed therein to the Division Bench. Advocate Shri Kadu, for respondent no.3 points out that the Appellate Authority has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Murlidhar Bhaiyaji Kapgate .vrs. Krishna Jairamji Meshram (1991 Mh.L.J. 897), wherein it has been held that three clear days notice is mandatory, and as such notice was not given, the election has been held to be vitiated by expressly observing that there is no question of estoppel in the matter. It has been also observed that attendance of members of Panchayat does not validate the absence of three days notice. Advocate Shri Saboo, states that this Division Bench judgment may not be applicable as the respondent no.3 himself has participated in the -3- election process. However, in view of the clear mandate of the judgment of Division Bench in the matter, I find myself unable to take any other view of the matter. Therefore, in the circumstances, Writ Petition is dismissed. No cost. It is informed that the petitioner is holding the office of Sarpanch even today. Advocate Shri Saboo, seeks protection for two weeks. His request is opposed by other side. However, in the interest of justice, status quo as on today be maintained upto 15.10.2008. This interim order shall cease to operate thereafter. JUDGE Rgd.