SUBHASH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties. Heard Mr.Ghuge for the petitioners, Mrs.Wandile, A.G.P., for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Patil for respondent no.5.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, dismissing the appeal filed under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, confirming the order of Additional Collector, Buldana, setting aside the motion of no confidence.

(3.) Mr.Ghuge, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the courts below erred in merely relying upon the affidavits dated 3.8.2007 filed by the panch witnesses only on the ground that those affidavits being first in point of time were required to be given preference to the subsequent affidavit dated 13.8.2007 in which the version was to the contrary. He further argued that respondent no.5 who filed the dispute, vaguely stated in the dispute petition about the ground on which ultimately both the impugned decisions have been taken. The dispute therefore clearly suffered from the vice of inappropriate and inadequate pleadings and therefore filing of affidavits on 3.8.2007 and acceptance thereof by the courts below is absurd. He then argued that respondent no.5 having lost the majority had absolutely no cause or reason to cling to the office of Sarpanch when eight members out of 12 voted against him. It cannot be believed that he did not know about the proposed meeting of 17.7.2007 during the six days, i.e. from the date of notice 11.7.2007 to 17.7.2007. He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned order.