MAYAVATI RAHUL SADAR Vs. TEHSILDAR, PATUR, AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chatari has challenged the notice dated 06/04/2017 issued by the Tahsildar convening a special meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner on 13/04/2017.

(2.) Shri S.D. Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a motion of no-confidence was sought to be moved against the petitioner. The meeting in that regard was held on 06/05/2016 and said motion came to be passed. As the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, he challenged that order by filing W.P. No.1818/2017. It is submitted that said writ petition was allowed and the motion was set aside. He therefore submits that based on the same grounds on the basis of which the earlier motion was moved, a subsequent motion could not have been moved. He further submits that as the petitioner was not reinstated on the post of Sarpanch after the earlier adjudication, issuance of subsequent notice of the special meeting dated 06/04/2017 did not have any legal force as the petitioner had not taken charge of the post of Sarpanch.

(3.) Shri R. D. Dhande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the other hand submitted that the earlier motion of no confidence was not carried for technical reasons viz. absence of service of the notice of the special meeting on the petitioner. According to him, this issue stands covered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramesh Vs. Sheshrao (1998) 9 SCC 113 wherein it has been held that if the earlier motion has not been carried, a subsequent motion could be moved in such circumstances. He also submitted that while allowing the earlier writ petition, this Court had directed the petitioner herein to be reinstated on the post of Sarpanch forthwith. Hence, it could not be said that the petitioner was not holding the post of Sarpanch.