Shri Bhagwant Bapu Zende v. Smt. Savita Santosh Gore & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B H MARLAPALLE
Provisions considered
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 ss. 14, 16
- Village Panchayats Act s. 16(2)
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Hence the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
Judgment
Heard Mr.Kate, the learned counsel for the petitioner approached Collector application Section 16 Section 14 Bombay Village Panchayats Act,
1958. Additional Collector Solapur
31/3/2006 allowed application The respondent nos.1 2 disqualified continue members Morochi Village Panchayat. Collector respondent nos.1 The 2 submitted nomination contesting elections 17/11/2005, 21 years. The respondent nos.1 2, 2 therefore, approached Divisional Commissioner appeal Section 16(2) Village Panchayats Act appeal allowed Additional Divisional Commissioner by the impugned order dated 4/4/2007.
There is no dispute that when the respondent nos.1 2 submitted nomination papers, 21 elected members Village Panchayat, remedy available petitioner citizen election petition Section 15 Act. Section 16 Act empowers Collector declare member panchayat elected subject disqualifications mentioned Section 14 election, disabled continuing a member office become vacant. The disqualifications mentioned Section 14 and more particularly in sub-section (1) (a-1) reads as under: " No person continue a member a Panchayat such, disqualified 3 purposes elections Legislature Maharashtra State. Provided that, person disqualified ground twenty-five age, attained twenty-one years. "
It is submitted by Mr.Kate, the learned counsel a reading proviso person who attained submitted nomination 21 disqualified elected. This submission accepted Collector. However, Additional Divisional Commissioner rightly stepped quashed the order passed by the Collector by referring to the following decisions of this Court: (1) Kalpana Ananda Sutar Vs. State Maharashtra & ors.[1998 [1998 [1998 (2) (2) (2) Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. 626] 626] 626] (2) Rama Mukharu Wakhare vs. Kashinath Antaram Gahane [1996 [1996 [1996 (1) (1) (1) Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. 478] 478] 478] (3) Tulsabai Maroti Shelke vs. Additional 4 Commissioner, Amaravati & ors. [2004 [2004 [2004 (2) (2) (2) Mah.L.R. Mah.L.R. Mah.L.R. 780]. 780] 780] . The Additional Divisional Commissioner rightly unless there was passed statutory authority holding respondent nos.1 2 disqualified force, permissible Collector entertain application Section 16 create a vacancy grounds respondent nos.1 2 attained 21 years. The Additional Commissioner cannot termed perverse illegal interference supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
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.