JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally considering the short issue involved. 2. The petitioner who has been disqualified from continuing as a member of Gram Panchayat, Shirpur under the provisions of Section 14(1)(h1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, 'the said Act') by the Additional Collector which order has been confirmed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal has challenged the same in the present writ petition. 3. The respondent no.3 herein initiated proceedings seeking disqualification of the petitioner on the ground that in the earlier term when the petitioner was a member of the Gram Panchayat, he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.35,630/Though he had been called upon by the Block Development Officer to pay the aforesaid amount, the said fact was suppressed by the petitioner while submitting his nomination form. After the petitioner was elected as a member, proceedings for his disqualification came to be filed by the respondent no.3 on 20.08.2015. According to the respondent no.3 since the amount in question had not been so deposited within the stipulated time, the provisions of Sections 140 and 178 of the said Act were attracted. In the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner it was stated that he had received notice from the Gram Panchayat on 13.10.2015 and in accordance with the said notice, the amount in question was deposited on 03.11.2015. It was further stated that no orders were passed either under Section 140 or Section 178 of the said Act on the basis of which the petitioner could be disqualified under Section 14(1)(h1) of the said Act. 4. The Additional Collector noted that the petitioner had been informed on 03.10.2012 to pay an amount of Rs.35,630/by the Block Development Officer and as that amount was deposited on 03.11.2015, the petitioner had incurred disqualification under the provisions of Section 14(1)(h1) of the said Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the requisite payment was not made within stipulated time. 5. Shri Chetan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of there being any orders passed under Section 140 or Section 178 of the said Act, the petitioner could not have been disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(1)(h1) of the said Act. 5. Shri Chetan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of there being any orders passed under Section 140 or Section 178 of the said Act, the petitioner could not have been disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(1)(h1) of the said Act. According to him, the disqualification under the said provision was attracted only if there was failure to pay the amount of surcharge or charge under Section 140 or Section 178 of the said Act. It was his submission that on 03.10.2012 a notice was issued by the Block Development Officer calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.35,630/- within a period of eight days, failing which the proceedings under Sections 178 and 179 of the said Act would be initiated by the Collector. Such proceedings were never initiated. It was therefore submitted that in absence of any orders being passed under Section 178 of the said Act, the petitioner could not have been disqualified. Without considering this aspect, the impugned orders came to be passed. The same were therefore liable to be set aside. 6. Mrs. M.A.Barabde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned order. By relying upon the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, it was submitted that though the Block Development Officer issued a notice to the petitioner on 03.10.2012, the amount in question was paid after almost three years on 03.11.2015. It was thus clear that as the amount in question was not paid within a period of one month, the petitioner was rightly disqualified by the Authorities. Hence no interference was called for. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused various documents on record. I have also given due consideration to the respective submissions. Under the provisions of Section 14(1)(h1) of the said Act if there is a failure to pay an amount of surcharge or charge under Section 140 of the said Act, or if there is a failure to pay the amount that is ordered to be paid under Section 178 of the said Act with interest within the prescribed period, then the person concerned is liable to be disqualified from being a member of the Gram Panchayat. In the present case, on 03.10.2012 the Block Development Officer issued a notice to the petitioner and called upon him to pay an amount of Rs.35,630/- within a period of eight days, failing which a proposal under Sections 178 and 179 of the said Act was to be submitted before the Collector. Thereafter on 13.10.2015 the Gram Panchayat issued another notice in that regard. On 03.11.2015 the petitioner deposited the said amount. There is nothing on record to indicate that any order was passed under Section 178 of the said Act. Under the provisions of Section 14(1)(h1) of the said Act, disqualification is attracted only if the amount ordered to be paid under Section 178 of the said Act along with interest has not paid within stipulated time. As stated above the notice of the Block Development Officer itself states that if the payment is not made within a period of eight days, a proposal would be submitted to the Collector for proceeding under Section 178 of the said Act. In absence of any order being passed under Section 178 of the said Act, the disqualification was not directed. It can also be seen that an order under Section 178(2) of the said Act has to be passed by the Collector. Similarly the power of recovery has been conferred on the Collector under Section 179 of the said Act. No such adjudication either under Section 178(2) or Section 179(1) of the said Act has been shown to have been done. This aspect was raised by the petitioner before the Authorities but the same has not been considered in the proper perspective. Merely by holding that a demand was made on 03.10.2012 and the amount was deposited on 03.11.2015, the petitioner has been disqualified. In absence of there being any order passed under Section 178 of the said Act, the petitioner was not liable to be disqualified under Section 14(1) (h1) of the said Act. The impugned orders are thus liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Additional Collector and the order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner are set aside. It is held that the petitioner has not incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(h1) of the said Act. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.