Bhimrao And Ors vs Additional Collector And Ors

A. S. Chandurkar, J

Rule heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners who had moved a requisition proposing a motion of no­confidence against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahagaon are aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector allowing the dispute filed by the said Sarpanch­respondent No.4 herein under Section 35(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, the said Act) and declaring the said motion as not having to the passed.

According to the petitioners a valid requisition dated 01/06/2016 signed by eight members out of total nine members was submitted to the Tahsildar for convening a special meeting to consider a vote of no­confidence against the Sarpanch. In the special meeting held on 07/06/2016 the said motion was passed by requisite majority with seven members voting in favour of the motion and two against it. The respondent No.4 thereafter filed the aforesaid dispute challenging the said motion. Initially the non­ applicant Nos.3 to 10 in that dispute filed a common written statement supporting the motion as passed. This reply was filed on 20/06/2016. Thereafter non­applicant Nos.6 and 9 filed another reply on 08/07/2016 and they denied their signatures on the requisition dated 01/06/2016. The Additional Collector despite noting that the entire proceedings were held in accordance with law, preferred to accept the subsequent reply dated 08/07/2016 and held that the requisition dated 01/06/2016 was not valid. On that count the dispute came to be allowed. Being aggrieved the petitioners have challenged the said adjudication.

Shri P. P. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the initial reply filed to the dispute, the non­applicant Nos.6 and 9 had put their signatures. They had not denied signing the requisition dated 01/06/2016. He referred to the notice of motion as well as the minutes of the special meeting to indicate signatures being made by non­ applicant Nos.6 and 9. He further submitted that the fact that the motion was passed with seven members in its favour and two against it itself falsifies the case of the non­applicant Nos.6 and 9. It is then submitted that the Additional Collector ought to have ignored the subsequent reply which was merely by way of an afterthought. Moreover, in the special meeting the said non­applicants did not raise any objection disputing their signatures on the requisition. Hence the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

Ms K. Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has produced the original records for perusal. Shri V. N. Patre, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that necessary instructions have not given by the said respondent No.4 and he therefore submits to the order of the Court.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order dated 19/12/2016 passed by the Additional Collector is liable to be set aside. In the initial reply filed by the non­applicant Nos.3 to 10 it was stated that the requisition dated 01/06/2016 had been signed by all the parties. In subsequent reply filed on behalf of the non­applicant Nos.6 and 9 a contrary stand has been taken. However, those non­applicants have not denied filing the earlier reply. It is to be noted that though said non­ applicant Nos.6 and 9 were present in the special meeting they did not raise any objection to the requisition dated 01/06/2016. No further steps were taken by them to dispute filing of the earlier reply. The fact that the motion was passed with seven members in its favour and two against speaks for itself. The Additional Collector after holding that the proceedings as well as the motion had been passed in accordance with law ought to have ignored the subsequent reply filed by non­applicant Nos.6 and 9 dated 08/07/2016. By considering that reply the Additional Collector committed an error. The impugned order therefore is liable to be set aside.

As a result the order dated 19/12/2016 passed by the Additional Collector is set aside. It is held that the motion of no­confidence has been validly passed against the respondent No.4 in the special meeting held on 07/06/2016. It is further declared that the respondent no.4 has thus ceased to hold the post of Sarpanch. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take necessary steps to fill in the vacancy as created.

Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.