POPAT RAGHO PATIL Vs. DAMU SHANKAR PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are concerned in this special civil application with a resolution of no -confidence sought to be tabled by two members of the Gram Panchayat of Shirpur in Dhulia District. Of the two members the petitioner is one. A notice necessary under Section 72(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, was given on March 2, 1964. It recited several grounds of misconduct on the part both of the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. With these grounds we are not here concerned, because what is in dispute is the subsequent procedure that was followed both by the chairman and by the divisional commissioner. The notice under Section 72(1) was given in the form prescribed by the rules known as Zilla Parishads Presiding Authorities (No -confidence Motion) Rules, 1962, framed under Section 274(2)(x). After reciting the various grounds upon which the signatories desired to move the no -confidence motion, they requested the chairman to convene a meeting for the purpose of considering the no -confidence motion. The chairman is respondent No. 1 before us and the vice -chairman respondent No. 2.

(2.) ON receiving the notice the chairman in his turn issued on March 11, 1964, a notice calling a special meeting to consider the motion of no -confidence against him on April 15, 1964, at 4 p.m. in the office of the Panchayat Samiti. On the same day he also issued another notice calling a separate meeting on April 16, 1964, at 9 a.m. in the office of the Panchayat Samiti to consider the motion of no -confidence against the vice -president. One of the principal points argued in this special civil application is as to the validity of the action of the chairman in issuing notices for April 15 and 16, 1964.

(3.) IT appears, however, that respondent No. 4 considered that the action taken by the chairman was a valid action under law and, therefore, he on his part did not consider it necessary to act under the second part of Sub -section (4) of Section 72. That is also the stand which the commissioner has taken in this Court. He has stated that the action taken by the chairman of the Samiti in convening the two meetings on April 15, 1964, and April 16, 1964, was a valid action. He has stated in para. 7 as follows: I say that the provisions contained in Sub -section (4) of Section 72 of the M.Z.P. & P.S. Act 1961 empowers the commissioner to convene a special meeting for consideration of a No -confidence motion in cases where the chairman of the Panchayat Samiti fails to comply with the directions issued under Section 72(2) of the said Act. Here in the present case, as the chairman had convened meetings within 10 days from the receipt of the notice, no action under Section 72(4) could be taken. That is precisely the stand which the petitioner challenges in the present petition.