GANESH KISANRAO MAHALLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the notice dated 5-3-2003 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the date of the special meeting of Murtizapur panchayat Samiti called for discussion and decision on the no confidence motion against the Chairman of the Samiti has been changed from 14-3-2003 to 21-3-2003. Originally the notice fixing the date of such special meeting was issued on 3-3-2003 pursuant to the requisition submitted by eight members of the said samiti. The said requisition was submitted on 3-3-2003 itself. It is the contention of the petitioner that considering the provisions of section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat samitis Act, 1961, hereinafter called as "the said Act", the Collector has no authority, either to postpone or adjourn the special meeting or to change the date of such meeting once convened and hence the impugned notice dated 5-3-2003 is bad in law and therefore, cannot be acted upon. It is his further contention that the provisions of law contained in subsection (5)of section 72 of the said Act clearly debars the Collector from either adjourning or postponing the special meeting once scheduled to take place pursuant to the issuance of the notice in that regard by the Collector under subsection (3) thereof. On the other hand the impugned notice is sought to be justified on behalf of the respondent contending that the mandate of section 72 of the said Act is that pursuant to service of such requisition by the majority of the members of the Samiti, it is the duty of the Collector to issue notice convening the meeting of the Samiti and such notice is required to be issued within seven days from the receipt of such requisition and such meeting should be held within thirty days from the date of issuance of such notice and all these mandates have been duly complied with by the Collector by issuing impugned notice and hence, it cannot be held to be bad in law. Referring to the provisions regarding bar of adjournment of the meeting under sub-section (5) of section 72. it is sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents that the same applies only after the actual meeting takes place and not prior to that. It is the contention of the respondents that sub-section (5) cannot be read in sub-section (3) and provisions of law contained in sub-section (3) cannot be allowed to be interpreted in the manner suggested by the petitioner. Attention is also drawn to sub-section (4) of section 72 which provides that the Collector or any officer authorised by him shall preside over the meeting pursuant to the notice under sub-section (3) and therefore, it is contended that the provisions of law contained in sub-section (5) would apply only after the stage of actual commencement of the meeting. Reliance is sought to be placed in a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Jayantibhaimanubhai Patel and others v. Arun Subodhbhai Mehta and others in support of the contention that the Collector enjoys the power to postpone the date of meeting convened, subject to that the notice in that regard has to be issued within seven days from the date of receipt of the requisition and the meeting should be convened within thirty days from the date of issuance of such notice.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned advocates and on perusal of the records, the following questions arise for consideration :