1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1185/2010 Smt. Sulochanabai Shankar Salakhe and others Vs. State of Mah. and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. V. G. Dhage, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. Jaiswal, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. A.Y. Kapgate, Adv. for respondents 3 and 4. Mr. S.D. Sirpurkar, Adv. for respondents 5 to 8. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2] The contention of Advocate Dhage is that the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat is in relation to house no. 244 on which Nago Modku Lihare has been permitted to construct. There is no resolution by Gram Panchayat in relation to plot Nos. 204 and 205. He, therefore, contends that disqualification of the petitioners by co-relating the resolution with plot Nos. 204 and 205 is unwarranted. 3] Perusal of report of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia produced before this Court shows absence of the material to demonstrate that plot Nos. 204 and 205 in relation to which complaint was made and plot no.244 in relation to which resolution was passed were one and the same. Advocate Dhage contends that in such circumstances, impugned orders passed without resolving this controversy is unsustainable. 2 4] Learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2 and Advocate Sirpurkar for respondents 5 to 8 are supporting the orders. He contends that appropriate inquiry has been conducted. Advocate Kapgate appearing for respondent no. 3 Chief Executive Officer states that he has not been served with a copy of the writ petition and he, therefore, seeks time. 5] Report of Chief Executive Officer submitted under Section 39(1) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 specifically shows that complainant could not connect Plot nos.204 and 205 with plots mentioned in the Resolution i. e. plot no. 244. The respective parties are not in a position to establish that connection before this Court. The impugned orders of Additional Commissioner at Nagpur or then the Hon'ble Minister (respondent no.1) have also overlooked this aspect. On the basis of such report under Section 39(1) it is apparent that action for disqualification could not have been taken. But then the petitioners have also not come up with this Court with a specific case showing that the plots are different. They have not produced any map before this Court to show this position. 6] Because of confusion prevailing on record and because of report submitted by responsible officer like Chief Executive Officer, I think it proper to grant petitioners' proper opportunity to demonstrate this and for that purpose, the impugned orders dated 17th February, 2010 passed by the Hon'ble Minister and order dated 14th December, 2009 3 passed by respondent no.2 Additional Commissioner are set aside. However, it is made clear that setting aside is only for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to show that Resolution passed is in relation to different plots and not one for which the complaint has been filed. The verification of identity of plots shall be completed by respondent no.2 as early as possible and in any case by 31st August, 2010. Said Authority shall pass fresh orders on the complaint by the said date. Till then status quo in relation to the petitioners' plots as on today shall continue. Rule is accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.