IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1328 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1328 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1328 OF 2008 Ashok Pundlik Akhade & others. ... Petitioners. V/s. The State through the Additional Commissioner, Nashik and others. ... Respondents. M.S.Karnik for the petitioners. Sameer Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Vidyadhar Gangurde for respondent No.3. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 12th August 2008. DATED: 12th August 2008. DATED: 12th August 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Rule, returnable after forthwith. . Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 11th February, 2008 passed by respondent No.1- Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.92/2007 whereby appeal was allowed and the order dated 5th November, 2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik rejecting the Dispute Application No.21/2007 filed by respondent No.3 seeking to cancel the membership of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 holding them disqualified came to be set aside. The Additional Commissioner by the impugned order disqualified the petitioners for not paying the arrears of taxes within a period of three months from the date of service of the notice. In other words, the petitioners were held disqualified under section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 ("Act" for short). 3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioners were elected as members of the Rawalgaon Gram Panchayat, Nashik. The Dispute Application No.21/2007 was filed by respondent No.3 herein alleging that the petitioners have incurred disqualification under section 14(1)(h) of the Act. According to him, the bills which were presented to the petitioners in respect of Gram Panchayat dues were not paid by them within the period of 3 months and, therefore, they were disqualified to be elected members of the Gram Panchayat. The said dispute was tried by respondent No.2- Additional Collector, Nashik. After hearing the parties to the dispute, the Additional Collector was pleased to hold that respondent No.3 could not prove service of bills on the petitioners. That is how the Additional Collector rejected the dispute. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent - 3 - No.3 filed Gram Panchayat Appeal bearing No.92/2007 before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik. 5. The above appeal was heard by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik. The appeal came to be allowed by a reasoned order holding therein that the bills were served on the petitioners and that they did not pay the dues of the Gram Panchayat within a period of three months from the date of service. The petitioners were held disqualified to hold elected office as members of the Gram Panchayat. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr.Karnik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that under section 14(1)(h) of the Act, not only the bill is required to served but the bill of demand also needs to be served. Since no bill of demand was served on any of the petitioners, they did not incur any disqualification as contemplated under section 14(1)(h) of the Act. - 4 - 8. The above submission made by Mr.Karnik is devoid of any substance in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandkhan v. Chandkhan v. Chandkhan v. W.N.Gound, Returning Officer, Malegaon W.N.Gound, Returning Officer, Malegaon W.N.Gound, Returning Officer, Malegaon, 1972 Mh.L.J. 792; wherein the learned Division Bench was pleased to hold that under section 14(1)(h) reference is only to the bill as contemplated under section 129(1) of the Act in respect of taxes and fees levied under section 124 of the Act and not to the bill of demand since section 129 of the Act has made distinction between a bill demanding taxes and fees and a writ of demand demanding arrears of taxes along with the fees for the writ of demand. 9. Mr.Karnik further submits that so far as petitioner Nos.2 is concerned, he never owned any house property. The subject house, in respect of which arrears were shown, is in the name of his father. He, thus, submits that no bill of demand could have been issued against petitioner No.2. The submission made in this behalf does not hold good in view of the explanation to section 14(1) which, specifically, lays down that failure to pay any tax or fee due to the panchayat by a member of an undivided Hindu family, or by a person belonging to a group or - 5 - unit, the members of which are by custom joint in estate or residence, shall be deemed to disqualify all members of such undivided Hindu family or as the case may be all the members of such group or unit. The petitioner No.2 being the member of an undivided family will be well within the mischief of section 14(1)(h) of the Act. 10. So far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, Mr.Karnik submits that the bill was issued in the name of her husband, who was no more alive. That since the bill was issued in the name of a dead person the demand was not valid. This submission made also does not hold good. After the death of husband of petitioner No.3, the property devolved on her. If the petitioner No.3 did not take any step to get her name mutated, she cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own lapse. Apart form this, she was served with notice of demand. She herself received it. She did not dispute validity thereof. On the contrary, she acted thereon and paid arrears. The submission, thus, advanced in this behalf is nothing but an afterthought and does not hold water. 11. Lastly, Mr.Karnik tried to challenge the - 6 - service of bill on each of the petitioner contending that the service of the bill was not legal and valid. He submits that so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the bill was served on the wife of petitioner No.1, whereas the bill, which was in the name of father of petitioner No.2, was served on his father. So far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, she herself has received the bill. Mr.Karnik submits that the service of bill on the petitioner No.1 was not legal, valid and proper. Hence there was no legal demand against him. 12. So far as above submission of improper service of bill is concerned, this submission does not hold good in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 since notices were served on the male member of the family of petitioner No.2 whereas petitioner No.3 herself has received the bill. So far as service of bill on petitioner No.1 is concerned, admittedly, it was served on his wife i.e. a female member. The said service was not legal and valid in view of section 129(3)(b) of the Act. The petitioner No.1, therefore, could not have been held disqualified under section 14(1)(h) for want of proper service. In absence of proper service there was no demand against him. - 7 - 13. In view of the above, the order holding petitioner No.1 as disqualified under section 14(1)(h) of the Act is liable to be set aside, whereas order holding petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as disqualified under section 14(1)(h) cannot be faulted. They were rightly disqualified by the authority below. 14. In the result petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order to the extent of petitioner No.1. Rule stands discharged so far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. No order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)