wp3850.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.3850/2011 Manoj Sakharam Bodkhe and another -vs- Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S/Shri F. Mirza, A. Deshpande, S.I.Jagirdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri A.D.Sonak, learned A.G.P.for the respondent Nos.1&2. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 09/08/2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 30th April, 2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed and resultantly the order passed by the Additional Collector, Washim dated 21/04/2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for disqualifying the respondent No.3 herein came to be confirmed. The petitioners were the complainants against the respondent No.4 herein and sought his disqualification on the ground that he was in arrears of payment of tax. It was the case of the petitioners that though the Bill No.36 in respect of the property of the respondent No.4 in question was served upon him on 20/09/2008. The said Bill had remained unpaid for a period of three months and, therefore, the respondent wp3850.11.odt 2/3 No.4 had incurred the disqualification covered by Section 14 (h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. It is required to be noted that the respondent No.4 herein, whose disqualification was sought by the petitioner, had paid the taxes in question to the Gram Panchayat on 30th May, 2009. Both the Authorities have recorded concurrent finding that there are suspicious circumstances in respect of issuance of bills to the petitioner, as the earlier receipts Nos.6, 8, 21, 32, 47, 84 and 100 bear the date 2nd of October, 2009 whereas the receipt No.36 bears the date 20th September, 2008. The Authorities, therefore, have cast a suspicion on the ground that how could the earlier receipts bear a later date and the later receipt bears an earlier date. The Authorities, therefore, have reached the conclusion that the respondent No.4 has paid the amount prior to the bill being received. Both the Authorities have in concurrently recorded the said finding. In my view, the view taken by the Authorities below is a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 1062 in the matter of Suvarna Prakash Patil vs. Anil Hindurao Powar and others. The said judgment lays down that when an issue of disqualification under Section 14 (h) arises, three conditions would have to be established viz. that there must be a failure to pay the bill presented under Section 129 of the said Act, secondly, the default must be wp3850.11.odt 3/3 continued for a period of three months and thirdly, the amount remained unpaid. In view of the finding recorded by both the Authorities below in the instant case, in my view, the said judgment would have no application. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE