YAMUNABAI LAXMAN CHAVAN Vs. SARUBAI TUKARAM JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith, Leamed Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) THE Petitioners are elected members of the Gram Panchayat of chimbli in the Taluka of Khed in the Dishict of Pune. The First Respondent in Writ Petition No,5114 of 2003 is the Sarpanch while the First Respondent in companion Writ Petition No,5115 of 2003 is the Upa Sanpanch, On 25th febiuary 2003, the Petitioners issued a inquisition to the Tahsildar, Khed in their capacity as members of the Gram Panchayat proposing to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch. The notice spelt out the reasons on the basis of which the requisitionists had decided to move the motion, immediately thereafter on 25th February 2003, the Tahsildar addressed notices to all the members of the Gram Panchayat including the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch iccording that a requisition had been received om Shri Panduring Vishnu Bankar and five other members of the Panchayat for moving a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch and Upa Saipanch. The Tahsildar intimated that he had convened a meeting on 4th March 2003 at 3 p. m. , in the office of the Gram Panchayat, in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, a meeting was held on the appointed day in which the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch participated. A resolution of no confidence was passed by a majority of six membeis voting in favour thereof. Three members of the Gram Panchayat including the Sarpanch and the Upa Saipanch voted against the resolution.

(3.) AN appeal was thereafter filed by the Sarpanch and the Upa sarpanch before the Collector under the provisions of Section 35 (3b) of the bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, The Collector allowed the appeal on the ground that through the Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch had been furnished a notice by the Tahsildar of the fact that a requisition had been received for moving a motion of no confidence, in pursuance whereof a meeting was convened on 4th March 2003, a copy of the Acquisition itself had not been furnishcd which contained the reasons on the basis of which the requisitionists had sought to move the motion. The Collector accordingly set aside the resolution. An appeal was thereafter filed under Section 35 (3c)before the Commissioner who has affirmed the decision of the Collector. The question which arises in these proceedings turns upon the consbuction of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act and the Rules which have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 176. The rules in question arc titled "the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and upa Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. Section 35 of the Act deals with a motion of no confidence and sub-sections (1), (2) (3), (3a), (3b) (3c) and 3 (D)provide thus: