SANJAY PANDURANG CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, a short question arises for my consideration as to whether the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, nasik Division, Nasik, allowing the appeal filed by the present respondent No. 5, declaring the meeting dated 2. 7. 2001 as vitiated on the ground that the meeting was not conveyed within seven days from the receipt of notice of no confidence motion by the Tahsildar and the minutes of the meeting were not properly written, can be sustained.

(2.) THE undisputed facts can be briefly stated thus: the petitioners and the Respondent No. 5 were elected as members of Gram Panchayat of village Jeur Kumbhari. Tq. Kopargaon, District ahmednagar. The term of the office of the petitioners and Respondent no. 5 commenced in the month of October 2000 and would come to an end in October 2005. The Respondent No. 5 is elected as Sarpanch (hereinafter referred to as "sarpanch") of the said village Panchayat. The members of the said Village Panchayat noticed that Respondent No. 5 is not carrying the obligation arid duties cast upon him by the statute in conducting the affairs of the Village Panchayat. The members were dissatisfied about the functioning of the Sarpanch. Considering these aspects, the members by their notice dated 25. 6. 2001 gave a notice as required under Section 35 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to the Tahsildar for convening the meeting to consider the no confidence motion. The notice is part of the paper book at Exhibit-A. The notice states that the members desire to move no confidence motion against the Sarpanch on the grounds stated in it. The notice is signed by eight members out of eleven members of the said village Panchayat. Though there is a dispute that not 8 but only 7 members have signed the requisition, but considering the fact that the notice is to be issued by not less than 1/3rd members of the Panchayat who are for time being entitle to sit and vote at the meeting, even if 7 members have given notice to convene the meeting for considering no confidence motion against the Sarpanch, it could not be treated as invalid notice, as admittedly, it is signed by more than 1/3rd members. On receipt of the requisition/notice from the members, the Tahsildar by his notice dated 26. 6. 2001 convened the meeting to consider no confidence motion moved by the members against the Sarpanch on 2. 7,2002. On the date fixed for the meeting, the Tahsildar conducted the meeting and in the said meeting 9 members were present who unanimously resolved to pass a resolution expressing their no confidence, the Sarpanch. The minutes of the meeting are at Exhibit-C to the petition. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 5 sarpanch was not present in that meeting.

(3.) ON passing of the resolution of no confidence, the Sarpanch, by invoking the provisions of Section 35 (3b) of the Act, filed a dispute before the Collector, Ahmednagar. The memo of dispute filed before the Collector, ahmednagar, is at Exhibit-D. After filing of the dispute, it appears that the collector has issued notice to the members and the members have filed their say to the said dispute. Their say is part of the paper book at page 28.