SAVITA Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26-4-2017 passed by the respondent No.1 by which it has been held that the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner is legal and valid while dismissing the appeal filed by her.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the post of Sarpanch at the respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat was reserved for members of the Other Backward Class category. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. A motion of no confidence was moved against her and in the meeting held on 29-8-2016, the same was carried by majority of more than 2/3 rd members. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal under provisions of Section 35(3)(B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, the said Act) and by the impugned order said appeal has been dismissed.

(3.) Shri P. S. Tiwari learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two fold contentions while challenging the impugned order. According to him, the petitioner being a lady and a Sarpanch, the motion of no confidence was required to be passed by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of members who are entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat. Reference in this regard was made to the third proviso to Section 35(3) of the said Act. As the motion was carried only by a majority of 2/3 rd members, the same was not legal and it could not be said that it was duly carried. For said purpose, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Shri Tanaji Bhauso Mane & Ors. Vs. Smt. Ushatai Balkrushna Mane & Ors. 2013(5) ALL MR 604. It was then submitted that on 6-1-2017, the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 8 were heard in the appeal and the case was closed for passing the orders and the date noted by the Counsel for the petitioner was 27-4-2017. However, thereafter on 1-4-2017 fresh hearing of the matter was shown to hve been conducted. The date noted by the Counsel for the petitioner was 27-4-2017. However, prior thereto on 26-4- 2017, the final order came to be passed dismissing the appeal. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he had not signed the proceedings/Roznama on 1-4-2017 nor were the parties heard on the said date. On the contrary, notice dated 19-4-2017 came to be issued by the office of the Additional Collector by which the hearing of the proceedings was fixed on 27-4-2017. Despite issuing this notice, the final order without conducting any fresh hearing came to be passed on 26-4-2017. On this ground also, the impugned order stood vitiated. The petitioner has also filed Civil Application No.543/2018 under provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for initiating appropriate action against the Authorities concerned for making false statement on oath.