Judgment : ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. The challenge in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is to the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Mehkar, in Election Petition No. 1 of 2008, dismissing the same. 3. Petitioner filed that election petition pointing out that rejection of his nomination paper on 10.12.2007 by Returning Officer under section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is bad and as the rejection of nomination paper is unsustainable, the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside of the election from Prabhag No.3. His contention was, no bill as contemplated by Section 14(1)(h) read with Section 129(1) of the Act of 1958 was served upon him at any point of time. The respondent no. 11 had relied upon the communication dated 19.11.2003. The said document was admitted and is not in dispute. 4. The petitioner did not lead any evidence before the trial Court and as he did not lead any evidence the trial Court concluded that the documents were not proved and petitioner did not establish that he was not defaulter. It, therefore, dismissed the election petition. 5. This Court on 24.3.2011 has issued notice for final disposal. Though respondents 1 to 10 are served they have chosen not to appear. 6. Shri Joshi contends that rejection of nomination paper under Section 14(1)(h) was not in dispute. The communication dated 19.11.2003 was also not in dispute and the stand of the Returning Officer in this respect reveals that, according to him, the said document needed to be treated as bill under Section 14(1)(h). According to him, in this view of the matter the impugned judgment dated 19.1.2011 shows total non-application of mind. 7. Learned AGP supports the impugned judgment. According to him, the impugned communication dated 19.11.2003 needs to be viewed as bill for recovery of tax. He has relied upon the order dated 12.1.2012 passed by this Court directing the petitioner and respondents to point out whether the petitioner has paid the amount as demanded in that document or any appeal has been preferred by him against the said order. Learned AGP also urged that the tenure of the present elected member from Prabhag No.3 is expiring in December, 2012 and a period of less than eight months is left and hence this Court should not interfere. Learned AGP also urged that the tenure of the present elected member from Prabhag No.3 is expiring in December, 2012 and a period of less than eight months is left and hence this Court should not interfere. 8. The facts on record even before the trial Court reveal that the communication dated 19.11.2003 was not in dispute. The claim of the present petitioner in the Election Petition was not denied by respondents 1 to 10 and they preferred not to appear before that Court. The trial Court has therefore proceeded ex parte against them. Only reply of Returning Officer was before the trial Court. Hence, the only question of law which required adjudication was, whether the communication dated 19.11.2003 could have been viewed as Bill under Section 129(1) and could have been used as source of disqualification against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act of 1958. 9. Perusal of Section 129(1) reveals that a bill for amount due from the petitioner needs to be presented to him specifying the date on or before which the amount claimed therein needs to be paid. Opening words thereof show that the bill can be issued when any tax or fee has become due. The Panchayat has to present such bill with details. Thus for recovery of tax or fee, bill under Section 129(1) is contemplated. Sub-section (2), on which learned AGP has placed strong reliance is not dependent on its operation on Section 129(1). It permits the Panchayat to serve a writ of demand when amount claimed in such bill is not paid or when any other sum due from any person is not paid. Thus writ of demand envisaged under Section 129(2) is not restricted only to demand for tax or fee as per Section 129(1). 10. It is not necessary to dwell more into this controversy because substantive provision dealing with disqualification, i.e. Section 14(1)(h) specifically stipulates that it has to be failure to pay any tax or fee. Thus if after a bill demanding such tax or fee is served upon the petitioner and he fails to pay the same within three months from the date on which the said amount is demanded, disqualification under Section 14(1)(h) accrues. It is therefore apparent that disqualification must be shown to be on account of non payment of tax or fee. Thus if after a bill demanding such tax or fee is served upon the petitioner and he fails to pay the same within three months from the date on which the said amount is demanded, disqualification under Section 14(1)(h) accrues. It is therefore apparent that disqualification must be shown to be on account of non payment of tax or fee. Insofar as Section 14(1)(h) is concerned, there cannot be any disqualification for not paying any sum other than the tax or fee due and recoverable by Panchayat. The contention of learned AGP that any compulsory recovery against a person needs to be viewed as tax, cannot be accepted. Words tax or fee have specific connotation in law and emanate from a legal sanction. In disqualification proceedings which may cast stigma, their strict meaning needs to be adhered to. 11. Perusal of the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper of petitioner on 10.12.2007 reveals that he has treated this communication as bill under Section 129(1) and rejected the nomination paper under Section 14(1)(h). The order shows that it is because of alleged misappropriation of Rs.1,54,852/- by the petitioner. At this stage, learned AGP has pointed out that in the election petition and in the impugned order and also the order dated 10.12.2007, reference is to the notice under Section 129(1) dated 18.11.2003 and the document produced before this Court as said notice is dated 19.11.2003. Shri Joshi asserts that it is the same document which has been referred to as 19.11.2003 in petition. However, as the fact show that the amount claimed in the communication dated 18.11.2003 and the communication produced before this Court is same and on account of misappropriation only, its date is not very relevant. 12. The discussion above clearly shows that penal provision is being used against the petitioner to hold him disqualified. The amount of alleged misappropriation cannot be viewed as amount of tax or fee under section 14(1)(h) and hence on that count no disqualification can be fastened on the petitioner. The trial Court was, therefore, not justified in dismissing the Election Petition only because no oral evidence was adduced. The question of law could have been looked into and answered by it. Thus, there is refusal to exercise jurisdiction on its part. 13. Rejection of nomination paper of petitioner by respondent no.11 on 10.12.2007 is unsustainable. The trial Court was, therefore, not justified in dismissing the Election Petition only because no oral evidence was adduced. The question of law could have been looked into and answered by it. Thus, there is refusal to exercise jurisdiction on its part. 13. Rejection of nomination paper of petitioner by respondent no.11 on 10.12.2007 is unsustainable. The nomination paper of petitioner ought to have been accepted and petitioner should have been permitted to contest the election. The election from Prabhag no.3 of respondent no.1-Gram Panchayat in which the petitioner had submitted his nomination paper therefore deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Election Petition filed by the present petitioner is accordingly allowed. Writ petition is also accordingly allowed by making Rule absolute in above terms. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.