Sau. Roopali Ananta Barde vs Additional Commissioner Amravati Division And Ors

Heard Shri C.R. Sharma, the learned counsel for petitioner, Shri A.V. Palshikar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2

and Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for respondent4.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent.

Challenge is to the order dated 1.2.2017 rendered by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in Appeal 361 of 2017, by and

under which, the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Additional Collector, Buldhana in Gram Panchayat Case 125/2015-16 declaring the petitioner

disqualified to hold the office of the member of the Gram Panchayat, is confirmed. The disqualification is predicated on the finding that alongwith the

nomination form, the petitioner did not submit the resolution of the Gram Sabha that she has a toilet in her house, although she did submit the certificate

of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat.

Both the orders of the authorities below are unexceptionable. The controversy is covered by several decisions of this Court interalia decision in Writ

petition 2736 of 2016 (Sau. Sharda Suresh Ingole vs. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others) which follows the

decision in Vijay Ramchandra Raut ..vs..Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division and others, 2014(3)Mh.L.J.641.

In view of the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 14(1)(j-5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, there is no infirmity

in the declaration of disqualification.

The petition is without substance and is rejected.