1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4638 OF 2008 (Vijay Gautam Tayde vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4711 OF 2008 (Sau. Padmabai Suresh Ingle vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 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. DECEMBER 01, 2008. Heard Shri Vyas and Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Patel and Kankale, learned AGPs for respondent No.1 to 3 in respective writ petitions and Shri Malokar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Malokar, learned counsel is seeking time to obtain instructions. I find that the matter has been adjourned even on earlier occasion and interim order is operating against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners. Time was given to Respondent No.4 on 12.11.2008 for this purpose. In both matters, the question is whether Gram Sabha was conducted on 3.6.2008 or not. The Additional Commissioner as also the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No.2 have held that Gram 2 Sabha did not take place. The learned counsel for the petitioners have invited my attention to enquiry report submitted by Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad which speaks of a meeting of Gram Sabha and mentions that the said meeting was not in accordance with law. They further contend that the material considered by both the authorities is not relevant and finding on its basis is perverse. Shri Malokar, learned counsel as also the learned AGPs relied upon the report submitted by Chief Executive Officer and also upon the impugned orders to contend that a finding of fact that meeting did not take place and proceedings of said meeting are fabricated, has been concurrently recorded and they, therefore, urge that this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. The perusal of both the orders show that what transpired on 3.6.2006 is nowhere reflected in any of these orders. The mention is only of notices of meeting and subsequent cancellation of one of such notices and also the Agenda for said meeting. It is, therefore, apparent that on the basis of these notices or Agenda included in those notices, one can at the most say that meeting was not legal. The finding that meeting did not take place or the proceedings were fabricated could not have been 3 reached on the basis of said material. The report of CEO in para 2 shows that the Sarpanch is shown to be present in the said meeting and she has signed accordingly in the proceedings book. It further found that Upsarpanch – Padmabai (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4711 of 2008) was also present but then there was no material to show that she presided over the Gram Sabha. The CEO also found that no evidence was brought on record that both these persons were on the date and time scheduled for meeting, were at some other place. In view of this and after noticing the inconsistencies in the notices convening the meeting and Agenda, the Chief Executive Officer has found that the meeting conducted cannot be held to be legal and valid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said officer has not reported that no meeting was conducted on 3.6.2006 as was the case of Respondent No.4 in appeal before the Additional Commissioner. This report or its implication is not considered by the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No.2 at all. The statutory report of CEO prima facie does not implicate either the Upsarpanch Smt. Ingle or member Shri Tayade. CEO only reports that resolutions passed on 3.6.2006 are illegal as meeting was not convened 4 legally. Respondent No.2 has called for all records and applied his mind and on the basis of appreciation of material, has recorded a finding. Submissions of B.D.O. contrary to report of CEO perhaps have influenced Respondent No.2. As mentioned above, the material disclosed is irrelevant and cannot be used to support the finding of facts reached by said authority. Even if it is presumed that there was some mischief in preparing agenda or conducting the meeting, still a finding of “misconduct” and indulgence by either of the petitioners therein could not have been reached on the material available on record merely on suspicion because of benefit derived by the petitioner Shri Tayade. I, therefore, find that the contention of Shri Malokar, learned counsel and AGPs that there are concurrent findings of facts by both the authorities, is misconceived. In the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 24.9.2008 passed by Respondent No.2 and dated 14.3.2008 passed by Respondent No.3 are hereby quashed and set aside. One opportunity is given to Respondent No.4 to demonstrate that the meeting of Gram Sabha did not take place on 3.6.2006 at all as per para 3 of his application because authorities have 5 not considered that plea at all. For that purpose, the matter is restored back to file of Respondent No.3 and said authority shall consider the matter afresh after giving parties due opportunity. The proceedings shall be decided by the said authority as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2009. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.