1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1063 of 2010 Shri Vinayak Pandurang Gujar .. .. Petitioner v/s. State of Mah. & ors. .. .. Respondents Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir for Petitioner. Mrs.Hema M. Whaval for Res.No.2. Mr.S.N. Bhosale, AGP for Res.No.1. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 23rd February, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule, returnable forthwith. 2.The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, dated 14.1.2010, dismissing his Appeal against the order passed by the Collector, Pune in Dispute Application No.57 of 2008, dated 19.6.2009, which came to be confirmed. The order was passed disqualifying him as a member of the Gram Panchayat under Section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (the Act). It is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner did not pay the amount mentioned in the bill for the tax / fee due to be paid to the Panchayat within 3 months 2 from the date on which the tax / fee was demanded and a bill for the purpose was duly served on him. The bill is not shown to be duly served. It is stated to have been dropped in the residence of the Petitioner by the employee of the Gram Panchayat. That fact has not been proved. That employee has simpliciter made the statement. The tax having not been paid, the procedure of law established under Section 129(2) of the Act was followed upon the premise that the Petitioner had not paid his tax / fee before the specified date of payment (which was 3 months from the date of issue of the bill duly served upon him). A writ of demand in prescribed form was to be issued. His bill is stated to have been served upon him on 2.7.2007 for Rs.1700/-. It remained unpaid for 3 months. The demand under Section 129(2) of the Act was made on 7.12.2007. Under Section 129(4) of the Act, the sum for which the writ of demand was served was to be paid within 30 days from the date of the service, failing which the Panchayat would be entitled to levy by restraint and sale of the movable property of the defaulter any sum mentioned in the writ of demand. The Petitioner has made payment of the tax / fee levied upon him immediately on the next day of the receipt of the writ of demand. 3.The only aspect on merits, which was required to be considered, was that the bill remained unpaid for more 3 than 3 months. 4.It is argued on behalf of Respondent No.2 that it does not matter that the writ of demand was satisfied by payment. It is correct that it is the bill which is issued under Section 129(1) which is required to be paid and not the writ of demand which is issued under Section 129(2) of the Act as held in the case of Arun Vaman Kane vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., AIR 1997 Bombay 374. 5.However, merely a Gram Panchayat employee stating that the bill was dropped in his house is not due service required under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. That due service has to be proved since the Petitioner has disputed the receipt of the bill. The impugned order shows that the statement of the employee was accepted and that the Petitioner had not shown the payment of the amount within 3 months of the date of the bill. That observation is the infirmity which the impugned order suffers from. It has not considered the requirement of Notice under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. 6.Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Pune dated 19.6.2009 and by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, dated 14.1.2010 are 4 required to be set aside. 7.It may be mentioned that the Petitioner and his Advocate had remained absent before the Additional Commissioner, Pune and the order was passed in their absence. It is seen that the Petitioner and his Advocate were indeed absent on 5 dates of hearing. Hence the Additional Commissioner, Pune passed the ex- parte order. The factum of passing the ex-parte order under those circumstances cannot be challenged. However, the challenge is to the merits of the order which is seen to be having substance. 8.Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed and the aforesaid two impugned orders are set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 9.There shall be no order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)