1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1954 OF 2010. Raman Shantilal Jain -: VERSUS :- The Additional Collector, Akola 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 : AUGUST 23, 2010. Heard Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri S.D. Chopde, learned Counsel for Respondent no.2 and Shri L.H. Kothari, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. Contention is, by not holding monthly meeting for the month of February, 2007 respondent no.4 has incurred disqualification. The order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Additional Collector is being assailed on the ground that it overlooks the fact that records were required to be fabricated to show the alleged arrangement made for the meeting. Though the Additional Collector has found that 2 the records were suspicious, the said Officer has not exercised jurisdiction available to hm for extraneous reasons. The respective learned counsel appearing for respondents state that 13.02.2007 was the date scheduled for meeting and as the mother of Secretary expired on 13.02.2007 itself, meeting could not be held on 13.02.2007 or then on 14.02.2007. Shri Chopde, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 states that why this reason for not holding the meeting did not figure in next monthly meeting is not apparent and in any case it was the duty of the Secretary. The fact that meeting for the month of February, 2007 has not been held, is not in dispute. The requirement of holding it is also not in dispute. The question is, then why the fact of its not holding or reasons therefor are not recorded any where by respondent no.3 or by respondent no.2. If not holding of monthly meeting results for disqualification, efforts made to conduct meeting and failure for reasons beyond human control could have been reflected in the records of the Gram Panchayat. That has not been done. Not only this, the notices of meeting allegedly issued on 07.02.2007 are alleged to be refused by some members. What was the reason for such refusal is not 3 apparent. If the meeting was being held in regular course of business of Gram Panchayat, the members would not have normally refused such notice. Alleged notices mention that meeting would be conducted on 13.02.2007 and if it was adjourned for want of quorum, it would be conducted on 14.02.2007. If records were not available on 13.02.2007 or on 14.02.2007, the Sarpanch of Up-Sarpanch could have put appropriate notice on notice board or could have them made appropriate endorsement on the Gram Panchayat records. The said fact of not holding meeting for reasons beyond control, could have figured in next meeting conducted in the month of March, 2007. It is to be noted that the notices for the month of January, 2007 and March, 2007 are issued from a notice book which is distinct and separate. A new notice book has been used only for the purpose of preparing and issuing notice allegedly dated 07.02.2007. If the notice were prepared in normal course, why these notices could not have been issued from the notice book in use on 07.02.2007 is also not clear. The respondent no.1 Additional Collector has not considered all these aspects. Service of notices dated 07.02.2007 personally by Secretary and lapses at level of Secretary speaks volumes in the matter. Merely because 4 there was death of mother of Secretary, that does not mean that the statutory provisions should not be complied with. In any case that does not also mean that the record should not be maintained properly. Here all the facts show that the notice dated 07.02.2007 were prepared later on and hence it is obvious that there was no meeting in the month of February, 2007. There was infact no plan also to hold any such meeting. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the impugned order of Additional Collector dated 15.03.2010 is unsustainable. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner before that Authority is allowed. Writ Petition is thus allowed. Rule is made absolute, in the aforesaid terms. No costs. The present order is stayed till 06.09.2010 at the request of Shri Chopde, learned counsel for respondent no.2. This interim order shall stand vacated automatically thereafter. JUDGE Rgd.