VISHWARASARO DAJIBARAO GHUGE Vs. VALLABHDAS SHEONARAYAN SHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE care concerned in this special civil application with a motion of no -confidence alleged to have been passed against the petitioner Vishwasrao Dajibarao Guhge who was the Chairman on the Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon Taluq Washim, district Akola. The panchayat Samiti Malegaon, it isn't in dispute consist of 14 members and 2 associate members under S. 57 of the Maharashtra Zillia Parishadas and Panchayar Samitis Act, 1961 [no V of 1962] [hereinafter referred to as the Act] The petitioners was elected Chairman of the Panahayat Samiti on 7-8-1962, and less than two years thereafter on 11-5-1964 a no - confidence motion was attempted to be oven against him, but that motion was for reason unknown withdrawn on 22-5-1964. Theater a fresh notice is no - confidence motion under S. 72 of the Act on was again given on 24-10-1964 by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and 13. A meeting was convened by the petitioners for 1-11-1964. At that meeting according to the respondents Nos 1 to 6 and 13, the no - confidence motion was validly passed.

(2.) THE petitioner says that there were rival factions in the Panchayat samiti since a considerable time and that the respondents Nos 1 to 6 were in minority and therefore wanted the oust the petitioner. They had made the first attempt and when the that attempt failed made the present attempt to pass no - confidence motion. According to the petitioner, the resolution has not been validly passed. The total possible membership of this panchayat samiti is 14 [the two associate members not being entitled to vote under S. 57 (1) (c) and (d) read with S. 72 (7 ). The no - confidences motion could not on have bee passed if eight members out of total of 14 had voted for there solution. But in the present case, the person who voted for the resolution were only 6 and therefore the resolution was not legally passed. It was also stated by the petitioner that the respondents Nos 11, 12 and 13 were initially members of the panchayat samiti by virtue of he fact that the were sarpanchas elected in by the members oft Gram Panchayats in accordance's with the provisions of S. 57 (2) of the Act. Their term of officer having expired, they were re - elected by the respective Gram panchayats prior to the date of the meeting i. e. 1-11-1964 The dates of election and the villages from which they were re = elected as stated by the petitioner in paragraph 5 are as follows:<FRM>JUDGEMENT_43_TLMHH0_1966Html1.htm</FRM> According to the petitioner, these persons being re - elected Sarpanchas were entitled to vote, but they were not given due notice of the meeting to be held on 1-11-1964 and therefore the entire proceedings of the meetings as we ll. as the no-confidence motion passed in the meeting are vitiated.

(3.) NOW, it will be seen that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is referring to the electorate for this purpose as the total possible membership of samiti as prescribed by S. 57 of the Act but the respondents say that having regard to the provisions of S. 72 (7) the law only requires a majority of the total number only members actually present at the meeting on 1-11-1964. If the latter view were to prevail then the no - confidence motion must be held to be valid because there were no that date only eleven members present view were to prevail the total possible membership of this samiti was 14, and so for obtaining a majority at least 8 votes, were necessary which was not the case. There fore the no = confidence motion will have to declared invalid.