1 wp1754.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1754 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. K.N. Lokhande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Mr. K.B. Bade holding for Mr. A.P. Avhad, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocates Mr. Lokhande for petitioner, Mr. Bade holding for Mr. Avhad for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Though the Additional Collector disqualified the respondent no.1 under Section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, the appellate authority has found that service of demand notice upon the respondent no.1 is not proper and it has therefore reversed that order. Advocate Mr. Lokhande contends that the petitioner with great difficulty could obtain the information under the Right to Information Act and the respondent no.1 has fabricated all records. 2 wp1754.11 2. Perused application moved by the petitioner for disqualification of respondent no.1. Application itself does not show the service of any demand as required under Section 129 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act upon the respondent no.1. Law requires proof of such service and then non-payment of some demanded therein within a period of three months from the date of last payment prescribed therein. As these aspects are not brought on record. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp1670.11