1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1791 OF 2010. Hirasingh S. Navdhinge and another. -: VERSUS :- The Hon'ble Minister, Village Development and Water Conservation Deptt. 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 : JULY 16, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. Wasnik, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.D. Raut, learned counsel for respondent no.4. By placing reliance upon the judgment dated 08.04.2010 in Writ Petition No. 3263/2009, learned Counsel for petitioners contend that voting in a particular manner by petitioners in the meeting of Gram Panchayat [Respondent no.4], cannot be the subject matter of disqualification. He has relied upon the discussions in paragraph no.23 of the said judgment. His further contention is, petitioners had given valid 2 reasons for voting in a particular manner and those reasons are not considered by the Divisional Commissioner or by the State Government. Shri Raut, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 are supporting the impugned order. They contend that there are Development Control Rules and petitioners have voted against the provisions as contained in those Rules. This by itself is misconduct and therefore, sufficient to warrant disqualification. The petitioners have in their reply stated that the Gram Sewak of Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat have granted sanction to other constructions adjacent to the construction of Gajraj Complex, and Gajraj Complex was being treated arbitrarily by rejecting permission to it. Petitioners state that this discrimination was arbitrary. This explanation furnished by the petitioners has not been looked into either by respondent no.2 or by respondent no.1. If the petitioners had any valid reason for voting in particular manner, that right could not have been denied to them 3 and its exercise could not have resulted into any disqualification. As I find that very reason pressed into service for voting in a particular manner is not looked into by the Authorities, the orders passed by the Authorities are unsustainable. The order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner and subsequent order dated 25.02.2010 passed by respondent no.1 State Government, are accordingly quashed and set aside. Proceedings are restored back to the file of Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur for taking fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. The parties to appear before respondent no.2 on 02.08.2010 and respondent no.2 shall attempt to decide the controversy afresh by 31.10.2010. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE Rgd.