HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Click here to view full judgement.
Chandurkar, J. -
(1.) This judgment governs Special Civil Applications Nos. 528, 529 and 530 of 1970.
(2.) All the three petitioners in these petitions had submitted the nomination forms for election as panchas of the Gram Panchayat. Malegaon. Tahsil Washim, District Akola. The elections of panchas to the said Gram Panchayat under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were to be held on 24-5-1970. 6-5-1970 was the last date for filing of the nomination papers and the nomination papers of all the three petitions were rejected on 7-5-1970 on which date scrutiny was held. The circumstances under which these forms came to be rejected are as follows :- Chandkhan, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 528 of 1970 was a candidate from ward No.2. An objection was raised to his nomination paper on the ground that on 8-9-1969 a bill for Rs. 32.35 P. on account of taxes payable tot he Gram Panchayat was given to him, but he having failed to pay that amount a write of demand for Rs. 32.85 was served on him on 18-11-1969. and in spite of this writ of demand he paid only Rupees 32.25 P. and failed to pay Re. 00.50 and thus he was in arrears of fee due from him in respect of the writ of demand issued to him. Sheshrao. the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 529 of 1970. had submitted a nomination form as a candidate from ward No.3 and the objection was that a bill for Rs. 320-00 on account of taxes due from his father was given to him on 21-10-1969. and since he had not paid the entire amount, a writ of demand for Rs. 158.25 P. was served on him for 27-12-1969. but Shesrao's father paid only Rs. 157.50 P. which was the amount of tax due. thus leaving a balance of Re. 00.75 on account of fee for the writ of demand unpaid. Babarao, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 530 of 1970 was a candidate from wards Nos. 2 and 7. His nomination form was objected to on the ground that since he had not paid Rupees 180.50 P. though a bill was submitted to him on 13-9-1969, a writ of demand for Rs. 181.25 P. was served on him on 4-12-1969 and he had paid only Rs. 180.50 P., thus leaving a balance of Re. 00.75 on account of fee for the writ of demand unpaid.
(3.) When these objections were taken the Returning Officer found that the nomination papers of all the three petitioners were liable to be rejected in view of the provisions of Section 14 (h) of the Act. So far as Sheshrao was concerned, his case fell within Explanation 2 to Section 14, which provided that for the purpose of Clause (h) failure to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat by a member of an undivided Hindu family shall be deemed to disqualify all members of such undivided Hindu family. The result was that the Returning Officer, Malegaon, rejected the forms of all the three petitions on the ground that they were disqualified.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.