ASHOK KRISHNAKANT MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to impugn a decision of the Collector of Raigad and a decision rendered in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, rejecting the challenge preferred by the petitioner to a resolution of no confidence passed in the Village Panchayat of Pali in District Raigad. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the course of the meeting in the Village Panchayat, person who wished to speak on the resolution of no confidence were prevented from doing so by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the Rules only provide that an opportunity be given to the person against whom the no confidence motion is moved. The issue involved is whether the exclusion of the members of the Village Panchayat from participation in the debate on a motion of no confidence would be destructive of the fundamental principles underlying democratic functioning so as to render the consequent resolution of no confidence motion invalid.

(3.) ON 10-12-1999, 5 members of the Village Panchayat of Pali gave a requisition notice to the Tahsildar stating that they proposed to move a resolution of no confidence against the petitioner who was the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. Pursuant thereto, by a notice dated 13-12-1999, the Tahsildar, Sudhagad convened a special meeting at 11 a. m. on 17-12-1999 for the purpose of the consideration of the motion of no confidence. On 17-12-1999 the meeting of the Village Panchayat was held. The Village Panchayat of Pali consists of 17 members of whom 16 were present at the time. The minutes of the meeting are annexed at Exhibit-C to the writ petition and it is an admitted position that at the said meeting the Tahsildar who was the presiding officer declined permission to any other members apart from the petitioner to speak and address the meeting. The Tahsildar was of the view that under the provisions of section 35 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, it was only the person against whom a motion of no confidence is sought to be moved who could be permitted to speak at the meeting. Consequently, one member of the Panchayat Shri Dinesh Shobhalal Shah who rose to speak on the motion was denied permission. The petitioner spoke at the meeting but 6 members left the meeting in protest against the decision of the Tahsildar not to allow them to address the meeting. The resolution of no confidence was passed by a vote of 9-0. Aggrieved by the resolution, the petitioner preferred a dispute, being Dispute No. 36 of 1999 under the provisions of section 3-B of the Act before the Collector. The Collector rejected the submission of the petitioner holding that (i) the requisition for the no confidence meeting had been moved by 5 out of 17 members and since under section 35 (2), 1/5th of the total membership had to move the requisition, the requisition was in order, (ii) the resolution of no confidence which had been passed a vote of 9-0 could not be invalidated on the ground that the members of the Village Panchayat who desired to speak were prevented from addressing the meeting. In appeal, the Joint Commissioner, Kokan Division, by his order dated 6-4-2000, affirmed the view taken by the Collector and it is against these orders which have upheld the validity of the resolution of no confidence that the petitioner has approached this Court.