1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 464 OF 2009 1. Dashrath S/o Dhondu Satpute } Age : 40 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 2. Shaligram S/o Shripat Patil } Age : 55 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 3. Gulab S/o Tukaram Patil } Age : 38 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 4. Gulab S/o Rajaram Patil } Age : 38 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 5. Khanderao S/o Madhavrao Patil } Age : 62 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 6. Abhimanu S/o Sahebrao Patil } Age : 55 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 7. Babasaheb S/o Totaram Kedar } Age : 28 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 8. Maharu S/o Vana Patil } Age : 32 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 9. Shailaja Uttamrao Patil } Age : 29 Years, Occ. : Agril. } 1o. Sambhaji S/o Baliram Patil } Age : 46 Years, Occ. : Agril. } All R/o : Adgaon, Tq. Erandol, } Dist. : Jalgaonl. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } 2 Through the Secretary, } Ministry of Education, } Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. } 2. The Chief Executive Officer, } Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. } 3. Surekha Sudhakar Mahajan } Age : 30 Years, Occ. Household } & Sarpanch, Adgaon, Tq. : } Erandol, Dist. : Jalgaon. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Anand Bhandari Advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. M.L.Dharashive, A.G.P. for State. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 01/09/2009 JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the Order dated 26/2/2008 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner made two fold submissions, firstly, the impugned Order passed by the Respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction. The second contention relied by the learned counsel is that the respondent no. 3 herein has not been removed from 3 the post of President of Committee by way of resolution. Therefore, relying on other grounds in the petition, learned counsel would submit that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Though, on number of occasions matter is adjourned by this Court, no reply is filed on behalf of State. Therefore, this Court has no option but to decide the petition in absence of proper assistance by the State counsel. 3. On careful perusal of the pleadings, it would show that it is the assertion of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The petitioner has placed reliance on the communication dated 24/4/2008 issued by the Information Officer, Gram Panchayat Department, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon under Right to Information Act that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, or Education Officer has no authority/power to cancel the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayt or Education Society of the Gram Panchayat. The same communication refers to Section 142 (1) and Section 37 of the Gram Panchayat Act. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that it is necessary to remand the matter back to the concerned authority to decide matter afresh. On plain reading of EXH. E at Page 34 would show that the respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction to set aside the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat or Education Committee of the Gram Panchayat as the case may be. 4 5. Petitioners have placed on record Govt. Resolution dated 16/4/2001 at page 35 of the compilation, which mentions that the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat is Ex-Officio President of the Rural Education Committee. Therefore, what follows from the said resolution is that the Sarpanch, who is President of the said committee by virtue of Govt. Resolution dated 16/4/2001, can not be removed or no order can be passed curtailing his powers. This is prima facie opinion of this Court without touching to the merits of the matter. Therefore, matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned authority with direction to decide first issue of jurisdiction as raised by the petitioner in this petition that the Chief Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad has no power or authority to decide the issue in question. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 26/2/2008 passed by respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside and matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 for fresh consideration by framing preliminary issue about the jurisdiction to entertain issue involved in the matter and dispose of the proceedings within two months from the receipt of order passed by this Court. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP464.09