SANGEETA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was the Sarpanch of the village Suki, tq. Purna, dist. Parbhani challenges a No Confidence Motion which was passed on 19th August, 1998 against her under section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. There is no dispute that the motion was passed by requisite majority. Validity of the motion is challenged in this petition. The validity was challenged before Collector and then before the Commissioner on two grounds viz. (1) that the notice of the said meeting was a proper notice within the meaning of Rule 5 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959 and (2) that the meeting did not take place in the office of the village panchayat, as provided under sub section (2) of section 35 of the Act and it took place at place other than the office.

(2.) MR. S. R. Barlinge, learned Counsel for petitioner, submitted that admittedly the notice was served on 18-8-1997 and the meeting took place on 19th August, 1998 i. e. on the next day, therefore, it will not be a notice in the eye of law.

(3.) MR. Barlinge, rightly submits that in the absence of any clear provisions in the Bombay Village Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959 will have to be read. Relying on this rule, Mr. Barlinge, submits that a notice will have to be served at least one clear day in advance on all the members of the panchayat. He invited our attention to the definition of "clear Day", defined in Clause (A) of Rule 2 submitted that day of issuance of the Notice and the day on which the meeting took place both will have to be excluded.