1 WP NO.8777 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8777 OF 2010 Ratan Khatrya Padvi, Age: 46 years, Occu: Agriculturist, R/o. Khatri, Tq. Akarani, Dist. Nandurbar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Zilla Parishad Nandurbar, Through Chief Officer, Nandurbar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. Mrs.Hirabai Vilas Padavi, Age: 40 years, Occu: Business, r/o. Surwani, Tq. Akrani, Dist. Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Advocate for Petitioners :Mr. Brahme S P AGP for Respondent State : Mr. V.H.Dighe. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. P.S.Patil. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr.C.R.Deshpande. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: November 25, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard finally. 2 WP NO.8777 OF 2010 2. Heard Mr.Brahme, learned Counsel for the petitioner extensively. He submits that the order questioned in the writ petition is erroneous as the order is devoid of reasons as to what made the learned Commissioner to agree to or approve disqualification of the petitioner, for absenteeism 3. Learned Counsel submits, the petitioner was in custody for a period from 3rd Nov.,2009, to 1st April, 2010, and, consequently, could not attend the meetings held at Zilla Parishad. An application dated 20th Jan.,2010, was sent by the petitioner from jail, intimating to despatch the notice, or the details of the agenda of the meetings, to him at Jail. Said application is received by the learned Chief Executive Officer on 25th Jan.,2010. Learned Counsel submits, the postal notices purported to be acknowledged on 16th Jan.,2010, at the residential address of the petitioner, could not be effectively served upon him as, apparently, he was in custody. Hence, it is concocted record. 4. The form of notices and mode of service is indicated under Rules. It is to be served by hand or is to be sent under certificate of posting. The record illustrate, the address of the petitioner was of Surwani, taluka Akarni, dist. Nandurbar. The evidence of service that 3 WP NO.8777 OF 2010 was placed before the appropriate authorities illustrated that notices were sent of the Standing Committee or of the General body at the given address. This has presumptive value. At page No.40 there is communication to the learned Commissioner dated 20th March,2010, which illustrate the details of absence of the petitioner in general body and standing committee meetings. The details are: A) Absence in General Body Meetings: 7/8/2009, 4/11/2009, 16/11/2009, 11/2/2010. B) Absence in the Standing Committee Meetings. 7/5/2009, 5/6/2009, 1/7/2009, 31/7/2009, 28/8/2009, 24/9/2009, 21/10/2009, 18/11/2009, 17/12/2009, 15/1/2010, 10/2/2010, 10/3/2010. 5. The grievance of learned Counsel for the petitioner of no service or non response to the communication dated 20th Jan.,2010, will not be surfacing to accept the contention of deliberate dereliction on the part of the authorities in effecting service. The absence, demonstrated herein-above, is to be reckoned from 7th May, 2009, and by calculation before the petitioner could be put behind the bars, there appears to be exhaustive period of six months for his absence. 4 WP NO.8777 OF 2010 6. Even otherwise, if the period is extended to 20th Jan.,2010, the date of communication, the period exceeds more than six months. 7. Section 40(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961, conceive in clause (b), becomes disqualified under sub-section (1) or Section (4) if he remains absent for a period of six consecutive months from meetings thereof. There is exclusion clause if leave is sanctioned. The exclusion clause of leave will not be operating as there is no attempt; barring communication dated 20th Jan.,2010, requiring agenda to be despatched to his address. The term used in Section 40(1)(b) is "meetings" which encompass general body and standing committee meetings. Consequently, the details herein-above illustrate, petitioner remained absent for six consecutive meetings which made the authorities concerned to take action and to disqualify. I do not see any perversity in the orders under challenge. 8. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief vacated. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) agp/8777-10wp