KONDABAI BHASKAR SOUR Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties.

(2.) Mr. Mahalle, learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued that Gram Panchayat Ghatnandra had in all nine posts of members in accordance with the notification. He further argued that the election was held for seven post out of nine posts because the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe (woman) and Scheduled Tribe could not be filled as there is no population of Scheduled Tribes in the village and therefore the reservation for two posts of members in that category of Scheduled Tribes was itself basically wrong. According to him, it was impossible to have nine members in the Gram Panchayat in the absence of any person belonging to Scheduled Tribes and therefore only seven members were elected. He further argued that in the election to the post of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch, the quorum for the meeting will have to be calculated taking strength as seven members and not nine members. Since four members were present in the meeting, though notices were served on all the seven members, there was a quorum and therefore the election could not have been set aside by the Additional Commissioner in the election dispute. He referred to Rule 11 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 (For short the Election Rules) and argued that the quorum spoken of by the said Rule will have to be read with reference to the actual members who could be elected in the fact situation of this case.

(3.) Per contra, Mrs. Wasnik, learned A.G.P., supported the impugned order.