1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 990 OF 2009 Maroti s/o Bhanudas Lawande ...Petitioner Versus Sambhaji s/o Nivruti Aynile & others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. J.S. Gavane, AGP for respondent No.4 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 3RD AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Collector, Latur in Case No. 2008/GrapNi/Kavi/CR/414 dated 11.9.2008. 3 It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.6.2005, elections of respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat were held. An application under Section 7 and 36 was filed by the petitioner alleging that the 2 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were failed to hold Gram Sabha and monthly meetings. The Extension Officer (Village Panchayat), accordingly on 7.3.2008 had filed report. However, respondent No.4 has rejected the application of the petitioner on 11.9.2008. Hence, this writ petition. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the pleading in the petition, grounds raised therein and has submitted that while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, the Additional Collector in para 1 has given finding in favour of the petitioner but ultimately rejected the application under Section 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. According to the learned counsel, it is observed by the Additional Collector that on 7.3.2008 Extension Officer Panchayat Samiti, Shirur Anantpal has prepared panchnama and said panchnama does show that the some of the members viz. Sau. Meenabai Balaji Bhangure, Madhukar Eknath Gaikwad, Maruti Bhanudas Lavhade and Janabai Kakaji Wadle, though were not present in the meeting, their names have been shown as proposers and seconders. The said report of the Extension Officer also shows that monthly meetings, which are shown by preparing false record are fortified by the report submitted by the Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shirur Anantpal. The learned counsel therefore, would submit that in view of this report and having been taken note of the said report the Additional Collector should not have rejected the said application filed by the present petitioner. Hence, learned counsel submitted that 3 this petition deserves to be entertained by quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.9.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Latur. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the order passed by the Additional Collector is perfectly justified. The Additional Collector has observed that the Gram Sevak has prepared report, which shows that Sau. Meenabai Balaji Bhangure, Madhukar Eknath Gaikwad, Maruti Bhanudas Labade and Janabai Kakaji Wadle have attended the said meeting to that effect, there is entry in the register and they have signed the said register maintained by the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel further submitted that the Additional Collector after giving proper hearing to both sides have held that the Gram Sabha and meeting are conducted in view of the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and therefore, the Additional Collector has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents and learned AGP for the State authorities and I am of the considered view that no interference is called in writ jurisdiction. The Additional Collector has held that the concerned respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have conducted monthly meetings and also conducted the Gram Sabha and to that 4 effect there is reference in his order. The Additional Collector has observed that the respondents herein have conducted 18 Gram Sabhas and 33 monthly meetings in the years 2005-06, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. According to the Additional Collector, on careful perusal of the record it transpired that necessary meetings and Gram Sabha has been conducted by the respondents. 7 Though the learned counsel has invited my attention to the report of Extension Officer dated 7.3.2007, Panchayat Samiti Shirur Anantpal, on query, learned counsel is not able to point out that under which provisions the said Officer was appointed to prepare panchnama and submit a report. It appears that said panchnama/report is prepared without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the said respondents. Therefore, the said report which is prepared by the Extension Officer without affording hearing to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has not been believed by the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector has recorded positive findings that the requisite number of Gram Sabha and monthly meetings have been conducted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ***** 5