1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3980 OF 2009 Chaya Ashokrao Shewale ... Petitioner V/s. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Machindra Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Patwadhan for Respondent Nos.4 to 8. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 7TH MAY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court contending that the order passed in her Dispute Application filed before the Additional Collector as well as the order passed in Appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune are erroneous. 2. The petitioner was elected as the “Sarpanch” of 2 Grampanchayat Yevalewadi, Taluka Kadegaon, District Sangli in September, 2007. It appears that the members of the Grampanchayat moved a requisition for a special meeting in order to pass a no confidence motion against the petitioner. That notice was issued on 26th December, 2008 through the Tahsildar. The petitioner was served with the notice as well as a copy of the requisition. The meeting was then held on 1st January, 2009 as required under the provisions of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner when admittedly the petitioner was not present. 3. Being aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner moved a Dispute Application before the Collector. That Dispute Application has been rejected and the order has been confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that 3 the petitioner had no notice of the requisition meeting as she had not received the same. He submits that the petitioner was under medical treatment with the J.J. Hospital in Mumbai and therefore it was physically impossible for the petitioner to be present on 28th December, 2008 when the notice was allegedly served on her in the Village. He submits that the petitioner was under medical treatment on 26th, 27th and 30th December, 2008 in the J.J. Hospital and therefore it was highly impossible that the petitioner who was then suffering from certain illnesses would be at the Village on 28th December, 2008 to receive the notice. He further submits that assuming it is accepted that the petitioner was present in the Village on 28th December, 2008, in any event she has not acknowledged a receipt of the notice as the signature on the acknowledgment is not hers. According to the learned Advocate, the petitioner’s signature can be copied by any person and therefore it would be inappropriate to rely on such an acknowledgment. He further submits that the 4 Appellate Authority had not granted any adjournment to the petitioner although she had sought one on 16th March, 2009 and had decided the Appeal in the absence of the petitioner’s Advocate on 23rd March, 2009. 5. As regards the first contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was not served because she was under medical treatment in Mumbai, the submission is unacceptable. The records which have been annexed to the Petition indicate that the petitioner had received medical treatment on 26th and 27th December, 2008 as well as on 30th December, 2008. According to the learned Advocate, 28th December, 2008 was a Sunday. Therefore, in all probability, the petitioner had returned to her village on 28th December, 2008 and therefore did not receive medical treatment on that day or the next day. 6. The submission of the learned Advocate that the signature on 5 the acknowledgment is not that of the petitioner is without substance. The petitioner had an opportunity to question this endorsement on the records of the Tahsildar in the Dispute Application. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that she could not raise this issue in the Dispute Application since at that point of time the petitioner had not seen the acknowledgment. However, in my opinion, the petitioner had ample opportunity to deny her signature, firstly, when the affidavit of evidence was filed by her and secondly, by calling for the opinion of a handwriting expert in the matter. The affidavit of the petitioner in evidence has been filed much after the proceedings commenced before the Collector and after the records from the Tahsildar were produced before the Collector. Thus the petitioner had an opportunity to deny her signature in this affidavit. She has chosen not to do so and therefore cannot now contend that her signature has been forged. 6 7. The last submission of the learned Advocate regarding the haste with which the Appellate Authority has decided the Appeal is also without merit. The Appeal, once preferred, is to be decided within 15 days by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The Appeal was preferred on 21st February, 2009. The petitioner applied for an adjournment on 16th March, 2009. That adjournment was refused. Thereafter, the order was passed on 23rd March, 2009. Thus, the petitioner would have made alternate arrangement on 23rd March, 2009, had she really wanted to proceed. 8. The Petition is rejected. 9. On the application made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the elections are stayed for a further period of two weeks. 7 .......