wp3856-11.odt /1/ Order IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3856 of 2011 Santosh M. Wavage and others. Vs. State of Mah. and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rode, AGP for the respondent no. 1&2. Mr. N.S.Warulkar, counsel for the R-3. Mr. A.V. Band, counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 21 st December, 2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Washim, dated 31.01.2011, and the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, dated 18.07.2011, holding that the petitioners were liable to be disqualified under section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the orders passed by the authorities are liable to be set aside as the petitioners were not granted an opportunity of hearing before the Additional Collector, Washim. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Additional Collector, Washim, had decided the application under section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act on 31st of January, 2011, without serving a notice to the wp3856-11.odt /2/ Order petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware that the Additional Collector, Washim, had fixed the matter for hearing on the application under section 14(h) of the Act. Shri Rode, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, has produced the record of the proceedings before the Additional Collector and states that notice of the proceedings under section 14(h) was duly served on the petitioners on 16.8.2010 and in spite of service of notice the petitioners have failed to remain present. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submitted that the submission made on behalf of the petitioners about the absence of service of notice is untrue and an afterthought as this ground was not raised by the petitioners in the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Additional Collector on 31.01.2011. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the proceedings before the Additional Collector, it appears that the petitioners were duly served with the notice. It is rightly pointed on behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioners that they were not served with the notice is an afterthought as this ground is not raised by the petitioners in the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Additional Collector dated 31.01.2011. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the signature of the petitioner no. 1 on the Vakalatnama and the signature on the notice of acknowledgment appears to be different, this court would not be in a position to consider this aspect in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It was necessary for the wp3856-11.odt /3/ Order petitioners to have pleaded about the absence of service of notice on them in the memo of appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner if the said fact was true. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners about absence of service of notice is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. The authorities have concurrently held that the petitioners had failed to pay the taxes within the prescribed period and hence were liable to be disqualified under the provisions of section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The findings recorded by both the authorities in this regard are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.