( 1 ) wp8634.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8634 OF 2010 Jitendra Prabhakar Sisode .. Petitioner Versus The Divisional Commissioner, .. Respondents Nashik Division, Nashik. Shri P.D. Bachate, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri R.N. Dhorde h/f.Shri R.L.Kute, Adv. for respondent No.4. Shri A.S. Savant, Advocate for respondent No.5. Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.6. Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.7. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 29.03.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri Bachate for the petitioner, Adv. Shri Bagul for respondent No.7, Adv. Shri Dhorde for respondent No.4, Adv. Shri Salunke for respondent No.2, Adv. Shri Amol Savant for respondent No.5, learned A.G.P. Shri Ghute-Patil for respondent No.1 and Adv. Shri U.S. Malte for respondent No.6. ( 2 ) wp8634.10 2. I have heard respective parties at length. It appears that on 19th October, 2010, thereafter on 19th November, 2010 and 7th January, 2011, the parties were heard, but no effective orders could be passed. On 19th October, 2010, this Court has stayed filling of vacancy caused by removal of the petitioner. Then, this Court directed the petitioner to file affidavit specifying that he does not claim any interest or entitlement to house properties in relation to which the defaults are claimed. That affidavit has not been filed so far. 3. Perusal of impugned order dated 9th September, 2010, passed by the Divisional Commissioner shows that in paragraph 26, the authority has mentioned various receipts with their dates and also house properties to which those receipts relate. The respective Counsel appearing for the respondents have urged that the word used in Marathi as Pavati in that paragraph is incorrect and those documents are in-fact bills of demand. They contend that payment for all those bills is in 2010. The impugned order, however, does not show any such finding. ( 3 ) wp8634.10 4. In paragraph 27 and only in relation to house No. 711, there is finding that the tax in relation to house No. 711 is not paid, though electric meter in that house is in the name of the petitioner. Adv. Shri Bachate has contended that non-payment of house tax in relation to house No. 711 was never a dispute before said authority. 5. The petitioner is not in position to point out the house in which he was residing at the time of submission of his nomination paper or when he filed written statement before the Additional Commissioner. His written statement has been filed on 26.07.2010 i.e. after report of Block Development Officer dated 08.01.2010, which the petitioner claims to be in his favour. Even in that written statement, he has not mentioned the house in which he resided. 6. In the absence of specific finding in the impugned order that the petitioner did not pay property tax dues within statutory period after service of bills upon him/his family members, the impugned order is unsustainable. ( 4 ) wp8634.10 Moreover, the use of word Pavati in paragraph 26 has added to confusion. 7. Though the order is being set aside, I find that there is no justification to reinstate the petitioner in present situation, as he is already out of the office from 9th September, 2010 and his defence in this respect appears to be evasive and adhoc. The authorities are, therefore, permitted to fill in vacancy caused by removal of the petitioner, but the same shall be subject to result of the proceedings being remanded back before respondent No.1. If respondent No.1 rejects the application, filed by the complainants before him and holds that the petitioner is not disqualified, the petitioner shall stand reinstated back to his office and the vacancy allowed to be filled in shall not be a hurdle in it. The Counsel for the petitioner has expressly agreed to this arrangement. 8. In view of the consent and also consent of respondent Nos. 2,4 & 5, the impugned order dated 9th September, 2010, is quashed and set aside. The proceedings ( 5 ) wp8634.10 are restored back to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, for taking afresh decision, as early as possible and in any case within three months after the parties are appeared. The parties are directed to appear before the authority on 18th April, 2011 and abide by its further instructions in this matter. Needless to mention, all arguments available to the petitioner and the respective respondents are open and can be raised before the authority. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs. [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] snk/2011/MAR11/wp8634.10