JUDGMENT 1. These three writ petitions are being disposed of finally by common judgment since the issue involved is the same. 2. In election to the Gram Panchayat Kasbegavhan, Tq. Anjangaon (Surji), District : Amravati, the last date of nomination as notified by the Election Officer was 24.3.2005. The taxes were paid by all the petitioners in respect of the houses, in which they were residing or were the owners there of on 24.3.2005 i.e. the last date of nomination. The elections were held and the petitioners were declared elected. Respondent No.4 in these writ petitions filed proceedings under Section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) on the ground that the petitioners could not continue as members of Gram Panchayat Kasbegavan, as they were disqualified having been in arrears when they contested and got elected in the election. The Additional Collector held that these petitioners were liable to pay the taxes as they were the members of the Hindu undivided family and had paid taxes on the last date of nomination. He, therefore, disqualified all the petitioners from holding the post of Gram Panchayat, Kasbegavan by allowing the said application under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati but the appeals were dismissed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions made the following submissions : (1) In accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ramkrishna Vithoba Pardhi and others...Versus...W.T. Kamhade, Returning Officer and another reported in 1984 Mh.L.J 816, r/w Rule 7 of the Elections Rules for the purposes of deciding the disqualification, last date of nomination is the deciding factor and not the first date and since admittedly all the petitioners had paid the taxes on the last date of nomination, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. (2) The word .to. after the word prior. occurring in explanation 2 (i) of Section 14 (1) of the Act will have to be read to mean that the last date of nomination will be the date inclusive for the purposes of payment of tax or fee even in accordance with Section 10 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. (2) The word .to. after the word prior. occurring in explanation 2 (i) of Section 14 (1) of the Act will have to be read to mean that the last date of nomination will be the date inclusive for the purposes of payment of tax or fee even in accordance with Section 10 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Raghunath and others...Versus...Govind Pandurang, reported in AIR 1953 Bombay 198, paragraph No.4. (3) Once the election is held the same can be set aside only by way of election petition, and therefore, application under Section 16 of the Act was not maintainable more so because of the bar under Section 15-A of the Act. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed the writ petitions and argued that the language employed in explanation 2 (i) is abundantly clear and there is no scope for any ambiguity in the absence of which every word used in Section will have to be given its full meaning. The word prior to occurring in explanation 2 (i) cannot be separated in the manner sought to be done by the petitioners. Learned A.G.P., therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently opposed the writ petitions and argued that the taxes were admittedly paid on the last date of nomination, and therefore, the petitioners incurred disqualification and consequent disability to function as Gram Panchayat members. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1964 Mh.L.J., Note - 39. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties for quite some time and I have gone through the orders impugned. Section 14 (1) (h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act reads thus : . “14 (1) (h) fails to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat [or the Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him; or] Explanation 2 therein further reads thus : .Explanation 2 . “14 (1) (h) fails to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat [or the Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him; or] Explanation 2 therein further reads thus : .Explanation 2 . For the purposes of clause (h) – (i) a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid the amount of any tax or fee due, prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of candidates ; (ii) failure to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat by a member of an undivided Hindu family, or by a person belonging to a group or unit the members of which are by custom joint in estate or residence, shall be deemed to disqualify all members of such undivided Hindu family or as the case may be all the members of such group or unit.. 7. Perusal of the above provisions and explanation disclose that legislature has specifically used word prior to the day prescribed for nomination of candidates in the said explanation i.e. explanation 2 (i). The word “prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of candidates will have to be read to mean before the commencement of the day prescribed for nomination of candidates. It is not the case of the petitioners that they all paid the taxes before commencement of the day prescribed for the nomination of candidates. On the contrary, their case is that all of them paid the taxes in the morning of 24th March, 2005, which was the last date for making nominations. This Court in the said decision reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 816 (supra) has held that the terminology used in explanation, namely, the day prescribed for nomination of candidates means last day prescribed for nomination of candidates and not the day when the process of making nominations begins or the first date of nomination of candidates. The said interpretation made by the Division Bench of this Court is binding on me and at any rate the same being correct, it will have to be held that the petitioners were entitled to make payment of the taxes not on the first day of making nominations but before the commencement of the last day meant for making nominations. 8. 8. It cannot be said that the legislature has utilized the terminology 'prior to the day' without any purpose. The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Raghunath and others (supra) cannot have any application in view of the fact that this Court in that case was not concerned with the term prior and Section 10 of the Bombay General Clauses Act has in that context also no application. I, therefore, hold that the legislature has specifically provided that the taxes will have to be paid before the commencement of the last day of nomination i.e. prior to the last day of making nominations. 9. The submission that the election of the petitioners could have been challenged only by way of election petition and that Section 16 of the Act could not be invoked, in my opinion, is wholly misplaced. The action under Section 16 of the Act can always be taken in case the candidate is disqualified, who is member of the Gram Panchayat. 10. The submission regarding bar under Section 15-A of the Act spoken up by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is also without any merit because the said provision relates to the electoral matters and not to the disqualification on which a member can be disqualified from being continued. Section 15-A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act is quoted below : .15-A Bar to interference by Court in electoral matters :- No election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except in accordance with the provisions of Section 15; and no Court other than the Judge referred to in that Section shall entertain any dispute in respect of such election.. Therefore, it cannot be said that issue of disqualification has anything to do with the electoral matters spoken up by Section 15-A of the Act. 11. For the above reasons, therefore, I do not find substance in any of the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioners. All these writ petitions will have to be therefore dismissed. The same are therefore dismissed. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) in each petition to respondent No.4. 12. Rule is discharged. Petitions dismissed.