1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4850 OF 2009 (Babarao Shriram Andhale & Anr. vs. Kishor Haribhau Deokar & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 04, 2010. Heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kadu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Khade, learned AGP for respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. The petitioners are members of Respondent No.2 – Gat Gram Panchayat. They have been disqualified on the ground of non payment of property taxes. The short ground raised by Shri Joshi, learned counsel is, notices served upon the petitioners did not stipulate last date of payment and hence period of 90 days, which needs to be counted after expiry of said last date, could not have been calculated. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Ramaji Rewatkar vs. Dilip Tulsiram Rewatkar, reported at 2006 (5) All MR 401. Shri Kadu, learned counsel as also Mrs. Khade, learned AGP for respective respondents state that the question was never raised before lower authorities and hence both the authorities have not looked into this 2 aspect. Without prejudice to this stand, Shri Kadu, learned counsel points out that the copy of the bill annexed with the petition is dated 25.07.2005 while other copy is dated 25.7.2008. He states that the demand was for the year 2008-09. With the assistance of all counsel, I have perused the papers. There is some error possibly in bill at page 46 of this petition. The said bill is from book No. 1, page No. 35 and in relation to house No. 36. In sentence immediately below the chart, the date or time within which the amount of bill was to be paid is not mentioned. This is the position in remaining two bills also. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Ramaji Rewatkar vs. Dilip Tulsiram Rewatkar (supra) is very clear. However, as Shri Kadu has raised some doubt about the facts and as the issue has been raised for the first time before this Court in writ petition, I find it proper to permit Respondent No.5 – Additional Collector, Akola, to have a re-look at entire controversy. The petitioners are continuing as Ward members even today and hence no prejudice would be caused to the parties if true facts come on record. For the said purpose, the impugned order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati - Respondent No.4 and order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Akola - Respondent No.5 are 3 hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is restored back to the file of Respondent No.5 for verifying the facts and to find out the application of above mentioned law to those facts. As the matter is old, Respondent No.5 shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 30.04.2010. The parties to appear before Respondent No.5 on 25.01.2010 and shall abide by its further instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.