1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1460 of 2010 Pravin Potkar ..vs.. Vijaya Rane and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 14, 2010. Heard Advocate Shri C.A.Joshi for the petitioner, Shri Gawande Advocate for respondent no.1 Shri J.B.Jaiswal, AGP for respondent no.3, Shri A.J.Thakkar Advocate for respondent no.2. Learned AGP is seeking time as he is still awaiting instructions and records. However, looking to the nature of controversy, the request of learned AGP is rejected. Advocate Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the monthly meeting of Grampanchayat for the year 2009 was never held that this is evident from information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and also from report of Extension Officer dated 14/10/2009. In the light of these documents, burden was upon respondent no.1 to conclusively establish that meeting was so conducted. He points out that before respondent no.3, respondent no.1 took a defence that as Secretary was on leave, the proceedings could not be recorded. The said defence has been mechanically accepted by the authority ignoring the other documents available on 2 record. He invites my attention to the certified copies received lateron to demonstrate that on relevant day the Secretary, in fact, worked and therefore, was not on leave. Contention is that as the Secretary was on leave, proceeding of meeting in June, 2009 was recorded separately is clearly by way of after thought and false. Advocate Gawande, learned counsel for respondent no.1, states that the authority has not only considered the defence of present respondent no.1 but has also considered other evidence on record to hold that the meeting was so conducted. He has invited attention to the relevant discussion by respondent no.3 with the contention that findings urged therein are neither erroneous nor perverse. Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that respondent no.2/Secretary was always present at the relevant time and hence contention that as Secretary was absent on 29/6/2009 and 30/6/2009, the proceedings could not be recorded is not correct. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the said authority had relied upon the evidence of one Subhash Mukunde and then has found that the proceedings of meeting conducted in June, 2009 are recorded in separate/new register and there was no complaint by present petitioner that said record was false or fabricated. The application of mind cannot be sustained as authorities has overlooked the fact that the petitioner was all the while contending that such a meeting was not conducted. The report of Extension Officer shows a conclusion that said meeting was not held at all. The certified copies produced 3 before this court prima facie reveal presence of Secretary on 29/6/2009 and 30/6/2009. I, therefore, find that relevant records of Grampanchayat and also the other material available on record has not been considered by respondent no.3 while deciding the controversy. If the responsible officer of Grampanchayat like respondent no.1 has fabricated the proceedings, the issue needed serious consideration. It appears that the petitioner also attempted to demonstrate that the said record or proceedings of meeting was not available to Grampanchayat till 10/2/2010. As I find that entire material which should have been looked into by respondent no.3 has not been considered, it is necessary to remand the matter back to respondent no.3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25/2/2010 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3 shall give proper opportunity to the parties and record fresh finding in accordance with law. It is made clear that findings and observations of this court above are only with a view to show that the material available and relevant for determination of this controversy has not been looked into. In the circumstances of the case, proceedings before respondent no.3 be expedited. The parties shall remain present before respondent no.3 on 12/7/2010. Respondent no.3 shall decide the proceedings as early as possible and in any case by 13th of Sept. 2010. Rule Accordingly. No costs. JUDGE chute