1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.380 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO.2885 OF 2011 (D). (Smt. Shamila Vasantrao Lanjewar Vs. State of Mah. and three others) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. Bharati Dangre, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mrs. N.P. Munshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 08, 2011. Action under Section 39 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 was taken against the petitioner- Sarpanch and removal was then questioned before Additional Commissioner. Order of Additional Commissioner formed subject matter of challenge in appeal before State Government and State Government rejected that appeal on 07.06.2011. Order of State Government and Additional Commissioner were then questioned in Writ Petition No. 2855/2011 and learned Single Judge of this Court has rejected that Writ Petition on 02.08.2011. Contention before learned Single Judge was, inquiry under Section 39 was not conducted by Chief 2 Executive Officer and therefore, judgment of this Court in 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 466 in the matter of Nimba Yadav Bhoi Vs. President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and ors. was violated. Learned Single Judge has rejected that contention. Effort to show that the report of inquiry which reveals that it is prepared by Chief Executive Officer, however, it is undated and could not have been accepted as sufficient to sustain serious action like same removal of Sarpanch. Learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mrs. Munshi, Advocate for respondent no.3 and Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.4 support the orders as passed. They contend that the Chief Executive Officer has in fact extended opportunity of hearing to petitioner and thereafter report has been prepared. The Chief Executive Officer had extended opportunity of hearing to appellant is not in dispute. Hence, merely because in report prepared thereafter he has not mentioned any date, the report or then exercise undertaken by him cannot be said to be vitiated. We do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the approach of learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE NSN