1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1758 OF 2010 ( Sau. Nanda Shankarrao Wasankar & Ors. vs. Minister of Village Development, Maharashtra State & 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. JULY 20, 2010. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri Tathod, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 and Shri Malokar, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. Shri Chopde, learned counsel contends that the grievance of this nature is cognizable only under Section 7 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, and, therefore, by the Collector. The impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner and State Government (Respondent No. 1) is, therefore, unsustainable. He also invites attention to the Enquiry Report submitted by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Dy. CEO) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and argues that the report shows holding of meeting on 22.08.2008 and then a direction to re-conduct the meeting. The meeting was accordingly held on 02.10.2008 and hence the application as moved by Respondent No. 6 is rendered infructuous. 2 Shri Malokar, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 states that the complaint was made by Respondent No. 6 pointing out misuse or abuse of power. According to him, actually there was no meeting held either on 15.08.2008 or on 22.08.2008. He further contends that there was even no meeting held on 02.10.2008. He points out that meeting of Mahila Gram Sabha is required to be conducted before such a meeting of Gram Panchayat but Respondents No. 1 & 2 found that there was no such meeting. His contention is, thus when holding of a meeting is not on record, only show thereof has been made and, therefore, powers under Section 39 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, are correctly exercised. Shri Tathod, learned counsel also supports the arguments of Shri Malokar, learned counsel. The learned AGP has also adopted the same line of arguments. The findings recorded by the authorities below do not disclose any abuse or misuse of powers by the petitioners. The reports submitted by Dy. CEO and CEO specifically show that meeting was held on 22.08.2008 and as the said meeting was found to be arranged without proper previous notice to the village, a direction to hold meeting again was issued. This position apparent on record is not looked into by Respondent No. 2 or Respondent No. 1. There is no mention of the report of Dy. CEO or CEO. 3 If these reports are to be accepted, it is apparent that the grievance in relation to meeting dated 22.08.2008 does not survive. The authorities had directed the petitioners to conduct the meeting again on 02.10.2008 and that meeting has been conducted. In these circumstances, whether after 02.10.2008 there can be any charge under Section 39 of the Act, is also the issue which arises for determination. That aspect also is not again looked into by the authorities. Shri Malokar, learned counsel has specifically made a statement before this Court that Respondent No. 6 has restricted his complaint only to Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. In view of the statement and considering the nature of grievance made and findings reached by Respondents No. 1 & 2 as also report of Respondent No. 4, I find it appropriate to direct Respondent No. 2 to reconsider the entire issue. For that purpose, order dated 15.12.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2 and order dated 25.02.2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 are quashed and set aside. The complaint filed by Respondent No. 6 is restored back to the file of Respondent No. 2 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. As the matter is old and being sent back, Respondent No. 2 shall attempt to take decision as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months after the parties appear before him. The parties 4 to appear before Respondent No. 2 on 5th August 2010 and to abide by his further directions in the matter. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.