SUBHASH FULSINGH RATHOD Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AMRAVATI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Parties waive notice. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Commissioner, Amravati Division, amravati whereby the Commissioner has allowed the appeals filed by the respondent Sheshrao and respondent Ramdhan the respondents 3 and 4 respectively. They were Sarpanch and Upsarpanch respectively of Gram Panchayat Tulsinagar, Tq. Mahagaon. They were served with the notice for no-confidence motion. The meeting was held on 15-4-1997 at 2 O clock. In this meeting, out of the 9 members, five voted for the resolution while four voted against the resolution. The motion was held to be carried. The Collector also approved of the motion and held that the motion was legally carried. The appeal has been allowed by the commissioner and the order of the Collector has been set aside on the ground that out of the nine members, five members would not constitute a majority. The view taken by the Commissioner is obviously incorrect. The Commissioner has relied upon the decision in K. Ambili vs. The Deputy director of Panchayats, AIR 1997 Ker. 73. The language of the provision in that ruling is entirely different from the language in the Bombay village Panchayats Act. The word used in the bombay Village Panchayats Act is majority. Out of nine, if five do not constitute a majority, we fail to follow as to what would be the majority. It is a simple mathematical rule that five is more than four. In that view of the matter, we hold that the order of the Commissioner is unsustainable and has to be set aside. We restore the order of the Collector and allow the petition in the above terms. Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any order as to the costs. Needless to say that the authorities would conduct the further election without any delay. Rule made absolute.