1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3446/2009 Sau.Vandana D.Savle ..vs..State of Maharashtra and ors. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri Anil S.Mardikar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri R.J. Kankale, AGP for R.Nos. 1,2 & 4. Shri Firdoz Mirza, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2009. This petition by the Sarpanch is directed against the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, ordering removal of the petitioner from the post of “Sarpanch” under Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Minister for State, who by his order dated 25th June, 2009 confirmed the order of the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. This is how the petitioner is before this Court. I have heard Shri Anil Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Shri Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for respondent no.6. The petitioner was alleged to be guilty of misconduct. An enquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad on as many as eight 2 charges. After considering the report of the Chief Executive Officer, the Commissioner, Amravati Division, held that charges No.2 and 4 were proved and therefore, ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Charge No.2 that the petitioner’s husband had encroached upon the some land which had been allotted to another person, and there was no entry in respect of said house where the petitioner was residing, in the Gram Panchayat record. It was not assessed to tax and therefore, tax was not paid. The Commissioner observed that the Gram Panchayat has to levy tax on all the houses in the village and the house in which the Sarpanch herself residing was not assessed to tax. The Commissioner held that this act on the part of Sarpanch amounts to negligence while discharging duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the encroachment, the petitioner husband has already approached the Tahsildar by making requisite payment for regularize the encroachment. It is a different matter. The payment to regularize the encroachment has nothing to do with the petitioner’s failure to assess her own house for tax. He also submitted that an attempt to have petitioner disqualified under Section 14 (1)(j)(iii)of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, on the very same ground was made and the Additional Collector, Washim, but his order dated 21st May, 2009 had categorically held that there was no encroachment on Government Land and therefore, the petitioner could not be disqualified. He submitted that non payment of tax could be a matter of disqualification only 3 under Section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and since the house had admittedly not been assessed to tax, there was no question of failure on the part of petitioner to pay tax and therefore, she could not be held guilty of misconduct on that ground. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submitted that the question is not non payment of tax on service of notice of demand, but of not at all taxing or assessing the house to tax. The petitioner is a Sarpanch. If she claims that as her house was not assessed to tax, no tax has been paid, she is obviously not discharging her duty as a Sarpanch, it could not be said that the Commissioner erred on holding that the petitioner was guilty of negligence in discharging her duties and thus misconducted in order to be subjected to removal under Section 39 of the Act. Charge No.4 was held by the Commissioner to be of a serious nature. It appears that the petitioner’s husband used to sign the notice of meeting which fact the petitioner had admitted in the course of enquiry. In this regard, it seems that except for holding the petitioner guilty for permitting her husband for signing the notices, all other aspects of charge No.4 were held as not proved by the Commissioner. It is a matter of personal perception as to whether charge No.4 was more serious or charge No.2 was more grave. Even if charge No.4 of permitting her husband to sign notices is ignored, charge No.2 that the petitioner failed to assess her own house for tax and had not paid tax for the same, would be sufficient to hold her guilty of misconduct. Persons holding responsible Civic offices cannot 4 be experted to neglect their duties when it comes to taxing their own accommodation. The contentions about political pressure canvassed have to be rejected since since there is no bar for a political leader to draw the attention of authorities to such negligence. In fact it is only such political rivalry which would ensure that persons desirous of holding political offices perform their obligations well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non payment of tax could be a matter of disqualification under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Act. This has to be rejected reiterating it is not a question of non payment of tax. The question is of negligence in discharging her duties as Sarpanch by not bringing this fact to the notice of Gram Panchayat that the house, which she occupied, was required to be assessed for tax. It is not something which a citizen holding such a responsible post ought to forget. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble Minister for State has not referred to the question of not assessing the house to tax and in fact referred to the question of encroachment alone. Be that as it may, may be for wrong reasons, Minister has passed the right order. In view of this, no case is made out for interference in exercising of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE Andurkar.