JAYSINGBHIMRAO GHUGE SAU INDIRABAI Vs. MOTIRAM UKANDA KHILLARE GANESH LAXMAN AANDHALE NARAYAN PRATAPRAO GHUGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the resolution of no confidence passed against the respondent No. 1 in the meeting dated 19. 01. 2000 is legal and valid.

(2.) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are elected members of Gram Panchayat of Sukanda. The respondent No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. A motion for no confidence against the Sarpanch was moved by the petitioners by submitting requisition to the Tahsildar of Malegaon on 12. 01. 2000. Pursuant to the requisition, the Tahsildar convened the special meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 19. 01. 2000. The motion was passed by majority of four versus three and it was accordingly recorded in the proceedings book. The respondent No. 1, Sarpanch moved an appeal under Section 35 (3b) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Additional Collector, Washim, who held that the meeting was not convened and held within seven days as required by the provisions of Section 35 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and, therefore, the motion of no confidence violates section 35 (2 ). The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati under Section 35 (3c) came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SECTION 35 of the Act, inter alia, provides as follows :