RAMKRISHNA YESHWANT GORE Vs. SECRETARY VILLAGE PANCHAYAT BORJAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch of Village Panchayat, Borjai, in Darwha taluq of Yeotmal district, invoke the jurisdiction of this Cxopurt to quash proceedings of the meeting of Village Panchayat of that village at its meeting held on 4-8-1964, in which a motion of no confidence is alleged to have been passed against them and also to quash a memorandum issued by the Administrative Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Yeotmal, dirtcting the Secretary to send a notice in prescribed form to the Collector. Yeotmal, regarding the vacancies that were created in the posts of Sarpanch and Upasarpanch of that village. The facts in this case are of considerable importance to point out the erroneous interpretation that seems to have been put on some of the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act in the functioning of the Panchayats and the powers of the Zilla Parishad and the Panchayat Samiti in supervising their work.

(2.) THE Village Panchayat of Borjai originally comprised of seven members. It is an admitted position that out of these seven members one Ganpat Krishan left the village and therefore ceased to be a member. Thus, at the relevant time there were only six members of the Village Panchayat of Borjai. Three members of the Village Panchayat gave a notice of no-confidence motion, against the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch. In compliance with this notice a meeting was convened for consideration of this motion of no-confidence and was actually held on 4th of August 1964. Out of the six members of the Panchayat, five members attended this meeting, the absent member being Shrimati Shembdi wife of Buza. As the motion of no-confidence was against the petitioners 1 and 2, one being Sarpanch and the other Upasarpanch respectively, respondent No. 4 Nathu Laxman Yawale was elected as a Chairman of this meeting. The petitioner's grievance is that the Chairman did not allow them to sit at the meeting or to explain the charges against them. After the motion was moved, votes were taken and the three members i. e. respondents 4, 5 and 6 voted in favour of the resolution and two members viz. the petitioners, cast their votes against the resolution. The petitioners have filed a copy of the proceeding book of that meeting (Annexure B ). The copy shows that the resolution was moved votes were taken and the voting was done as indicated above. Names of members who voted for the resolution are noted in column 6 of the Proceeding book and the names of the petitioners who voted against the resolution are shown in column 7 thereof. The result is noted in column 8 and it shows "passed by 3 votes".

(3.) ONE Sopan, who is a patwari, was also the Secretary of this Village Panchayat. , He has been impleaded as respondent No, 1 to this petition, but he has made neither appearance nor has filed any return. The petitioners have alleged that respondent No. 1 in his capacity as Secretary of the Village Panchayat, sent a report and a copy of the proceedings to the Zilla Parishad and the Panchayat Samiti. He intimated that the resolution was passed by three votes. On receipt of this initmation from the Secretary, it appears, respondent No. 2 through the Administrative Officer, acting for the Chief Executive Officer, sent a memorandum dated 10th September 1964, to respondent No. 1 directing him to send a notice in the prescribed form to the Collector, Yeotmal, regarding the vacancies that have been created in the offices of Sarpanch and Upasarpanch, if such notices were not already sent. By sheer fortuitous circumstances this memorandum was noticed by the petitioners from which they came to know that the Secretary had intimated to respondent No. 2 about the passing of the resolution and the action required to be taken. This memorandam was received in the office of the Village Panchayat on 19th September 1964, and immediately thereafter the petitioners made an application to the Chief Executive Officer explaining the true position. This application is alleged to have been received by the Chief Executive Officer on 25th September 1964, but that officer did not take any steps regarding the grievance made in that application. As no reply was received from the Zilla Parishad, the petitioners filed another application before the Block Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, Ner, explaining the same position. It is averred in paragraph 6 of the petition that the Block Development Officer submitted his report to the Zilla Parishad that the vote of no-confidence was not passed as required by the provisions of the Act, but there is nothing on the record of the proceedings before us to know exactly what were the contents of this report to the Zilla Parishad. As no reply was received from the Zilla Parishad, the petitioners filed another application on 7-10-64 and also saw the Panchayat Officer along with their legal adviser. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition that the Panchayat Officer informed the petitioners and their counsel that the zilla Parishad could not do anything in the matter because the Secretary of the Village Panchayat i. e. respondent No. 1, had informed them that a vote of no-confidence has been passed. As the petitioners were unable to obtain any relief, they have come to this Court seeking its extraordinary jurisdiction.