DHRUPAD BHAGWAN SAWALE Vs. COLLECTOR DISTRICT BULDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard parties by consent. The sole point for consideration in this matter is whether notices of motion of no-confidence dated 25-9-1986 issued against the President and Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad, Buldana (Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) issued under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Presiding Authorities (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1962 (the Rules) framed under section 274(2)(x) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (the Act) are valid for want of grounds in the motions. One of the motions reads :

(2.) Shri Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-Collector, has submitted that in a democratic set up, the fact that the majority has lost confidence is by itself sufficient reason for removal irrespective of validity or correctness of the grounds or reasons for loss of confidence and hence the notices were valid. Reliance has been placed on the case of (Ramkrushna and another v. Kisan Zingraji Madke and others) 1970 Maharashtra Law Journal 836 with interpreted section 55 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act which reads thus :

(3.) Having regard to the clear difference in the language used in the two provisions, it is not possible to apply the ratio of Ramkrushna to the present matter. Indeed, this difference has been considered and on that basis, the ratio of Ganeshsinha was not applied in Ramkrushna by observing :