MADHUKAR AJABRAO OKATE Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR GONDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10-3-2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Gondia, dismissing an appeal challenging the "no confidence motion" dated 6-2-2014 passed against the petitioner. Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Vishwas Pandurang Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu, 2011 3 MhLJ 500 and the Division Bench judgment in the case of Vishnu Ramchandra Patil and ors. v. Group Gram Panchayat and ors., 2013 3 MhLJ 133 and has urged that Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 is mandatory and noncompliance of the said provision would render the decision taken on "no confidence motion" to be illegal and invalid. He has invited my attention to the minutes of the meeting dated 6-2-2014 and has urged that the requirement of proposer and seconder as it contained in Rule 17 has not been followed and therefore, the "no confidence motion" ought to have been set aside.

(2.) The propositions of law laid down in the two judgments cited supra, cannot be disputed. It will apply to cases where facts are proved. The question as to whether, the motion was proposed and/or seconded is a question of fact which is required to be pleaded and proved. Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel fairly admits that such a question was not raised in an appeal before the Additional Collector, Gondia. The perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 16-2-2014 does not indicate that there was a proposer or seconder, moving the motion. However, that by itself is not enough to conclude the issue. It has to be proved by leading a positive evidence by examining witnesses so that the other side shall have an opportunity to cross-examine them. To conclude such an issue merely on the basis of the proceedings of the meeting, would deprive the other side an opportunity to lead evidence to show that in fact such motion was proposed and seconded, but the Presiding Officer did not record it in the proceedings either inadvertently or negligently. The fact that the motion of no confidence was not proposed and/or seconded has not been established. Hence, the judgments cited are not applicable. In view of this, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.