SHRIKRUSHNA DIGAMBAR JADHAV Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A. V. Gawande, Advocate for petitioner, Shri A. S. Sonare, A. G. P. for respondent No.1 to 3 and Shri P. S. Patil advocate for respondent Nos.5, 6, 7, 8. None present for respondent Nos.4 and 9. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.

(2.) Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in Appeal No. BVP/35 (3) (c)/08-09 of Brahmi whereby the appeal of the petitioner to challenge order of Additional collector in the proceedings No.21/69/08-09 Mouja Brahmi Tahsil Darwha, district : Yavatmal, was rejected.

(3.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated thus. Petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Village Gram Panchayat, Brahmi from 18-11-2008. Respondent Nos.5 to 8, members of Gram Panchayat, Brahmi, gave a notice to respondent No.3 - Tahsildar for moving No Confidence Motion against petitioner. Respondent No.3 - Tahsildar issued notice to the members of the Gram Panchayat for the special meeting for this purpose, which was scheduled on 24-11-2008. On 24-11-2008, the special meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion was convened at 2.00 p. m. petitioner raised written objection before respondent No.3 - Presiding Officer of the said special meeting regarding non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 2 (4) of the bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch Motion of No confidence) Rules. According to the petitioner, Tahsildar had failed to provide the text of No Confidence Motion and charges against the petitioner. According to the petitioner he was not given opportunity of hearing, as he was not supplied with the notice under Rule 2 (1) of the said rules along with the notice which was sent to him. The motion was carried by 4:2. The passing of this resolution of no-confidence against the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner before the collector by filing dispute under section 35 (3) (b) of Bombay Village Panchayat act. The Additional Collector, however, found that the service of notice was proper. He also found that the petitioner was heard and No Confidence Motion was properly carried. Therefore, he dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.