Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ashok Sitaram Misal, contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Kukkadgaon held on 11/10/2008. Respondent No.3, Mahadeo Rambhau Athawale, was declared elected. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a dispute under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Collector. The Collector partly allowed the dispute, setting aside the declaration of respondent No.3 as Sarpanch, but rejected the appellant's prayer to be declared elected. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed it holding that no appeal lies against the Collector's order under Section 33(5). The appellant challenged the Commissioner's order before a learned Single Judge of the High Court, who rejected the petition at the admission stage. Hence, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench framed the limited question of whether an appeal lies to the Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector under Section 33(5). After hearing counsel, the Bench held that the provision does not provide for any further appeal against the Collector's order, and therefore the appeal before the Commissioner was not maintainable. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Village Panchayats - Election Dispute - Section 33(5) Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Appeal against Collector's order - The court considered whether an appeal lies to the Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector under Section 33(5) of the Act. The appellant had challenged the election of Sarpanch before the Collector, who partly allowed the dispute but rejected the appellant's prayer for being declared elected. The appellant's appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed as not maintainable. The learned Single Judge upheld that view. The Division Bench held that no appeal lies against the Collector's order under Section 33(5) as the provision does not provide for any further appeal. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal lies to the Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector adjudicating a dispute under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The order of the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 33(5) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act
- 1958
- No appeal against Collector's order under Section 33(5)
- Finality of Collector's order
- Maintainability of appeal before Commissioner
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 229
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.22/2010
A.P.Deshpande, N.D.Deshpande
V.D.Salunke for appellant, S.S.Thombre for Respondents 2 to 7 & 10, V.A.Shinde, AGP for Respondents State
The Returning Officer, The Gramsevak, Mahadeo S/o Rambhau Athawale, Babasaheb s/o Limba Chavan, Bhagwat s/o Rambhau Nawale, Parmeshwar s/o Bhagwan Nawale, Smt.Shobabai w/o Nana Khandagale, Smt. Meera w/o Babasaheb Kute, Raosaheb s/o Dadarao Nirmal, Ashabai w/o Sopan Bhate, The Additional Collector, The Additional Divisional Commissioner
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging Commissioner's order holding appeal not maintainable under Section 33(5) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order of the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge and to have his appeal before the Commissioner heard on merits.
Filing Reason
The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner was dismissed as not maintainable, and the learned Single Judge rejected his writ petition at admission stage.
Previous Decisions
Collector partly allowed the dispute under Section 33(5) setting aside declaration of respondent no.3 as Sarpanch but rejected appellant's prayer to be declared elected. Commissioner dismissed appellant's appeal as not maintainable. Learned Single Judge rejected writ petition at admission stage.
Issues
Whether an appeal lies to the Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that appeal lies to Commissioner against Collector's order under Section 33(5).
Respondents contended that no appeal is provided under Section 33(5) and the Collector's order is final.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 does not provide for any appeal against the order of the Collector. Therefore, an appeal before the Commissioner against such an order is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
A short question that arises for consideration in the Appeal is as to whether Appeal lies to the Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector adjudicating the dispute under Section 33(5) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 or otherwise.
The Commissioner has dismissed the Appeal by holding that an Appeal against an order of Collector before Commissioner under Section 33(5) of the Act is not maintainable.
Procedural History
Election for Sarpanch held on 11/10/2008. Appellant filed dispute under Section 33(5) before Collector. Collector partly allowed on 11/10/2008? (date not clear). Appellant filed appeal before Commissioner. Commissioner dismissed appeal as not maintainable. Appellant filed writ petition before High Court. Learned Single Judge rejected petition at admission stage. Appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal before Division Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: 33(5)
