FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO.1683/2010 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.G.P for respondents No. 1 to 3. Advocate Mr. Ashpak Patil for respondents No.6 to 10. 2. Present petitioner, has been held to be disqualified under section 14 (J-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 r.w section 16 by the learned Additional District Collector, Aurangabad. This order is annexed with the petition dated 17.12.2009. Petitioner was the non-applicant in that proceeding before learned Additional District Collector. Order passed by the Additional District Collector dated 17.12.2009, disqualifying the present petitioner in view of section 14 (J-1) read with section 16 has been challenged by the present petitioner by filing appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. This appeal appears to have been filed on 22.12.2009. During the pendency of this appeal, present petitioner made a request seeking stay to the order passed by the Additional District Collector dis-qualifying him being a Sarpanch of the Village Grampanchayat. This application filed by the present petitioner has been rejected by the learned Divisional Commissioner by order dated 11.01.2010. 3. Thus, interlocutory order rejecting the application for stay filed by the present petitioner is the subject matter of this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner points out observations made by the learned Additional District Collector. He submitted that his substantive appeal is pending before learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. After decision given by the Additional District Collector, Gramsevak has addressed a communication to him dated 21.01.2010. Thereafter also there is one more communication received by the petitioner from Block Development Officer to Gramsevak. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Pabbathi Venkataramalai Chetty V/s Pabbathi N. Rathanamalai Chetty and others reported in (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 151. He therefore seeks quashment of the order impugned. Learned A.G.P. supports the order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner so also advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 10 also supports the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 4. According to counsel for the petitioner, date of birth of the third child is 16.11.2000. In contrast to this submission, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 10 submits that date of birth of the third child of the petitioner is 07.11.2001. Both of them have pointed out observation made by the learned Additional District Collector. 5. The Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court , I have considered carefully. In the case on hand, it is matter pertaining to the disqualification of the present petitioner. Order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, is based on the observations made by the fact finding authority i.e. Additional District Collector. Manipulation of the record benefiting the petitioner is observed by the learned Additional District Collector. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in my view no case for interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction is established. However, learned Divisional Commissioner can be directed to decide and dispose of the appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 to 10. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Petitioner and respondents No.6 to 10 shall appear before the learned Divisional Commissioner on 10.03.2010. Both the counsels fairly concedes that 10th March, 2010 is the date given by the learned Divisional Commissioner for final disposal of the appeal. 8. Learned Divisional Commissioner shall decide the appeal in accordance with the provisions of law, after hearing the parties. He shall decide the appeal within three weeks from 10.03.2010. ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) * * * Dt :- 24.02.2010 aaa/1683.10