1 W.P.No.1825/07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1825 OF 2007. Haridas S/o Dagduba Shelar, Age 39 years, Occ.Agri. & Member of Grampanchayat Jalaki, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Aurangabad. 2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. Santosh Ambadas Dekhne, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Jalki, Tq.Sillod, Dist.Auragnabad. 5. Group Grampanchayat Jalki Ghat Bojgaon, Tq.Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. 2 W.P.No.1825/07 Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Mr.Rahul Joshi, advocate for the Respondent No.5. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.07.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The Addl. Collector, Aurangabad vide its order dated 29.12.2005, disqualified the petitioner from being the member of the Village Panchayat Jalki, as per Section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal on 18.1.2006, before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the said appeal on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner observed that the limitation for filing the appeal U/s 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, is 15 days and as the appeal is filed beyond 15 days from the date of order has dismissed the appeal 3 W.P.No.1825/07 on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has assailed the said judgment in the present petition. 3. Mrs.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date was not given for pronouncement of the judgment. The judgment was pronounced behind the back of the petitioner. The notice of intimation of the said judgment was issued by the office of the Respondent on 4.1.2006, which was received by the petitioner on or about 6.1.2007. The appeal filed on 18.1.2006 shall have to be held within limitation. The words from the date of order should be interpreted as the date of communication of the order. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Shri Tularam Govinda Bhogare Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in 2004 (3) ALL MR 167. 4. The learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader from his record confirms that the notice of intimation of the judgment passed by the Collector was 4 W.P.No.1825/07 issued on 4.1.2006. The appeal is filed on 18.1.2006. As such even from the date of issuance of notice of intimation of the judgment, the appeal is filed within 15 days. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Shri Tularam Govinda Bhogare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" referred supra, it will have to be held that the words from the date of order appearing in Section 16 will have to be read as the date of communication of the order. 5. In light of above, it will have to be held that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner against the order of the Collector, disqualifying the petitioner U/s 16 was within limitation. 6. The impugned order as such is quashed and set aside. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 8.8.2011 and shall after giving an opportunity to all the parties decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 5 W.P.No.1825/07 7. Rule accordingly made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp182507