CHANDRAKALABAI Vs. BALAJI S O SHAHAJI DHOKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD respective Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE election for Village Panchayat, Phulambri, was held in May, 1995, and the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat on 5-9-1995. There are total 17 elected members of the Village Panchayat. On 16-9-1997, two no confidence motions, one against the Sarpanch and second against the Up-Sarpanch, were moved by 7 members of the Village Panchayat as per the provisions of section 35 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). It is the contention of the petitioner that the notice was given by the members of the Grampanchayat to the Naib Tahsildar of Aurangabad Taluka and not to the Tahsildar of Taluka. The Naib Tahsildar verified their presence, but it was shown to the Naib Tahsildar that the signature of member-Smt. Saraswatibai Annasaheb Jadhav was forged on the notice. The Naib Tahsildar verified the presence of 7 members and then made an endorsement to that effect on the notices.

(3.) IT is further contended by the petitioner that the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, directed that the meeting to consider the no confidence motion, both against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch be held on 22-9-1997 at 2. p. m. The petitioner has contended that very hasty action is taken by the Tahsildar in this respect. As per the provisions of section 35 of the Act, the Tahsildar is to convene the meeting within the period of 7 days. It is not necessary to hold the meeting within the period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice of motion of no confidence. It is further contended by the petitioner that she did not receive the notice regarding meeting to be held on 22-9-1997 for considering the no confidence motion against herself. However, she had received the notice regarding meeting to be held for consideration of no confidence motion against Up-Sarpanch and, therefore, she attended the meeting. When the subject of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch was taken up before the meeting, she raised the objection that she was not served with the notice regarding the meeting to be held for consideration of motion of no confidence against Sarpanch. She also stated that the allegations made in the motion of no confidence were altogether false, baseless and that no opportunity was given to her to defend herself.