CHAITRAM DAGADU SONAVANE Vs. MALEGAON PANCHAYAT SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the members of the Panchayat Samiti of Malegaon. Respondent No. 2 was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. On May 7, 1964, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and 12 other members of the Panchayat Samiti gave a notice of a motion of no -confidence in respondent No. 2 under Sub -section (1) of Section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. This notice was received by respondent No. 2 on May 7, 1964. On May 16, 1964, he issued a notice calling a meeting of the Samiti for the purpose of considering the motion of. no -confidence on June 27, 1964. A meeting was accordingly held on June 27, 1964, in which the motion of no -confidence in respondent No. 2 was carried by a majority of 14 to 9. The petitioner thereafter filed the present special civil application, in which be has contended that the meeting, which was held on June 27,1964, at which the motion of no -confidence was passed, was illegal, as it was not held within ten days from the date on which the notice of no -confidence motion was received by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or direction to be issued to the Panchayat Samiti respondent No. 1 not to give effect to the motion of no -confidence passed in the meeting held on June 27, 1964. The Division Bench before which the application came up for hearing decided to refer it to a larger Bench in view of what it regarded to be conflicting decisions, in Haribhau v. State : AIR 1967 Bom 186 and Popat Ragho v. Damn Slianhar. : (1964)66 BOMLR 729.

(2.) THE question, which arises for our consideration, may be formulated as under: Whether under Sub -section (2) of Section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, as this section stood before it was amended by the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Second Amendment) Act, 1964, it was necessary to hold a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti for the consideration of a motion of no -confidence of which notice had been given under Sub -section (1), within ten days of the receipt of the notice or whether this sub -section only required that a notice calling a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti should be issued within ten days of the receipt of the notice of no -confidence motion?

(3.) IN Haribhau v. State, a Division Bench of this Court held that a meeting of the Panehayat Samiti convened by the Commissioner under Sub -section (4) of Section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panehayat Samitis Act is either an ordinary meeting or a special meeting and that notice of such meeting must, therefore, be given in accordance with the provisions of Sub -section (4) of Section 111 of the Act. In that case the Commissioner had convened a meeting of the Samiti after two days' notice. It was held that the notice was bad and that the meeting held in pursuance of it was illegal. This decision led to the amendment of Sub -section (2) of Section 49, Sub -section (2) and (4) of Section 72 and Section 118 by Maharashtra Act XXXV of 1963, as mentioned above. In the meantime another Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Bhimrao Narcvyam, Deshmukh v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yeotmal (1903) Special Civil Application No. 4 decided by Abhyankar and Wagle JJ., on September 27, 196S. (Unrep.). of 1903, held that the word 'convene' in Sub -section (2) of Section 72 only meant 'call', that what was required by Sub -section (2) was that the Chairman shall call a meeting or issue a notice of the meeting for consideration of the no -confidence motion within ten days of the receipt of the requisition and that it did not require that the meeting shall be held within ten days of the receipt of the motion of no -confidence. A contrary view has, however, been taken in Popat Ragho v. Damu Shankar, in which it has been held that the expression 'convene a special meeting of the Panehayat Samiti' in Sub -section (2) and (4) of Section 72 of the Act implied that the Chairman of the Panehayat Samiti should have called the body together and held the meeting before the expiry of ten days from the receipt of the notice. Evidently on account of these decisions the Legislature has again amended the above sections by Maharashtra Act XLIII of 1964 and the word 'convene' has been replaced by the word 'call' in Sections 49 and 72.