JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---This is a petition of two petitioners of the village panchayat Devapur in Degloor taluka of Nanded district. The office of the Sarpanch of the village panchayat, Devapur is reserved for the category of other Backward Class (woman). An order to this effect has been passed by the Collector, Nanded under section 30 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. After the elections, respondent No. 6 Smt. Noor BAAG Jamanabee Maulana, a woman member of the village panchayat elected from the seat reserved for Other Backward Class was elected as the Sarpanch unopposed since she alone had filed a valid nomination. On 25th July 1996, a vote of No Confidence came to be passed per majority against the said Sarpanch and, therefore, the office of the Sarpanch became vacant under the provisions of section 35(3) of the said Act.

2. Again the election of Sarpanch of the village panchayat was announced and on 7th September 1996, the respondent No. 6 Smt. Noor Baag Jamanabee Maulana was again elected as the Sarpanch unopposed. The present petitioners and three other members of the village panchayat had filed an objection petition to the Returning Officer saying that the respondent No. 6 has already been removed by passing a No-Confidence motion and, therefore, her nomination paper be rejected. The Returning Officer rejected the said objection petition and declared the respondent No. 6 having been elected unopposed. The majority of the members thereupon again moved a vote of No Confidence and in a meeting held on 3-8-1997, the vote of No Confidence was passed against respondent No. 6 per majority as required by sub-section (3) of section 35 of the Act and thus, the office of Sarpanch again became vacant.

3. By notice dated 3-9-1997, the Presiding Officer appointed, called a meeting of the village panchayat to elect the Sarpanch of the village on 10-9-1997. On 4-9-1997, the present petitioner No. 2 filed an objection with the Commissioner, Aurangabad contending that because of the reservation in favour of woman belonging to the category of Other Backward Class, respondent No. 6 is likely to file a nomination and again elected unopposed since no other member of the village panchayat is entitled to contest the seat in view of the present reservation. It was contended that twice the vote of No Confidence was passed and the majority of members are against respondent No. 6 and thus, the development of the village is stalled. Therefore, the reservation in favour of woman belonging to Other Backward Class be cancelled so as to give opportunity for member belonging to some other category. The Commissioner did not pass any order on this application. Hence this petition.

4. Shri A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that a member on whom the vote of No Confidence was twice passed, should not be allowed to contest the same seat again. The term of office as defined under section 31 is co-terminus with the panchayat but if it is so interpreted, then the purpose of passing a No Confidence motion, as permitted under section, 35 would be defeated in view of the reservation of the office of Sarpanch, appreciated in the light of the fact that there is only one member belonging to the category for which the office is reserved. He further submitted that if the member is guilty of misconduct, he would be entitled to be continued by successive elections in view of the reservation in favour of a particular category.

5. Removal of a Sarpanch by passing a vote of No Confidence under section 35 does not entail a disqualification for further election under the scheme of the Act. A person removed by passing a vote of No Confidence can get himself re-elected as many times as can, during the tenure of panchayat. It is true that the reservation in favour of a category has limited the choice of the members to elect a new Sarpanch but this is consequence of the constitutional mandate given effect to by the statutory

Click Here to Read the rest of this document