✦ Bombay High Court

COURT v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 968 of 2008MARLAPALLE4 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
MARLAPALLE

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. The proceedings and more particularly the Resolution 18/12/2006 clearly indicates Village Education Committee consisted members Mrs. Headmistress Member Secretary Committee. Vice-chairman Panchayat Samiti Nilam M. Hajite members Committee. Resolution No. 20 clearly stated Block Officer Panchayat Samiti visited school 16/9/2006 project additional rooms’ construction…
  • Para 44. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. Ad-interim order stands vacated. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Judgment

1.

Heard Mr. Sabban the learned counsel for the petitioner elected member Village Panchayat, Mangaon, District Raigad. Dispute Application No. 10 2007 before Collector present respondent no.4 Section 14 (g) Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 unseating petitioner. After hearing parties concerned, Additional Collector, Raigad

8/8/2007 pleased application unseated petitioner a member :2: Village Panchayat. This challenged filing appeal Section 16(2) Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 registered Appeal No. 378

2007. The learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai judgment and order dated 15/1/2008 was pleased to dismiss the appeal and hence this petition.

2.

Mr. Patne the learned AGP placed before me proceeding Zilla Parishad School, Old Mangaon book maintained Gram Shikshan Samiti, Old Mangaon. The charge against petitioner executed a contract construction additional school accepted money. His defence before Additional Collector amount a contract awarded Village Panchayat a project sought implemented Zilla Parishad through Village Panchayat 18/1/2002, Government Resolution Sarvashiksha Abhiyan undertaken Government India. On hand, authorities project executed through Village :3: Panchayat Parishad released Zilla construction additional rooms/halls school and, therefore, work fell within the ambit of Section 14(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

3.

The proceedings and more particularly the Resolution 18/12/2006 clearly indicates Village Education Committee consisted members Mrs. Headmistress Member Secretary Committee. Vice-chairman Panchayat Samiti Nilam M. Hajite members Committee. Resolution No. 20 clearly stated Block Officer Panchayat Samiti visited school 16/9/2006 project additional rooms’ construction sanctioned. ensure quality proper supervision proper utilisation funds, a Building Committee formed present petitioner To Sub Chairman Committee members Headmistress. It submitted learned counsel petitioner construction school building additional school building Village Panchayat :4: and, therefore, subject contract disqualify petitioner. Chapter III administrative powers Duties Village Panchayat Section 45 administrative powers. Sub-section (3) Section states a Panchayat provision carrying within village Act 45 measure likely promote health, safety, education, comfort, convenience, social economic cultural well-being inhabitants village. As policy State Government, projects supervison Government India administered through Zilla Parishad, which, turn, projects Taluka Panchayat Village Panchayat be. The minutes clearly indicate project executed through Village Panchayat petitioner Contractor same. The expenditure disbursed Village Panchayat and, therefore, a accept subject project concerned Village Panchayat administrative powers. In opinion, both the authorities below rightly held that :5: Section 14(g) Act squarely applicable and, therefore, the disqualification sustained by the petitioner can not be interfered.

4.

Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. Ad-interim order stands vacated. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 968 of 2008). ← Search more judgments