JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---Petitioners, who are the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch, Ambak, Taluka Khanapur, Dist. Sangli, have filed the present petition seeking to impugn the No Confidence Motion passed against them in a meeting held on 17th April, 1997.

2.Few facts, giving rise to the filing of the petition, are as under:-

In a Bye-election held on 3rd April, 1997, one Bhausaheb Pandurang Jagdale was elected. His election was displayed on the Notice Board of Grampanchayat on 9th April, 1997. On 11th April, 1997, a requisition for calling a meeting to consider No Confidence Motion was issued. On 12th April, 1997, requisition notice is signed by five members, which is more than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Grampanchayat. The Tahsildar by his notice dated 12th April, 1997, convened a meeting to be held on 17th April, 1997. The said notice, it is the case of the petitioners, was served upon them on 15th April, 1997. In the meeting held on 17th April, 1997, No Confidence Motion has been duly passed. The petitioners after having failed in the appeals filed before the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, have moved the present petition.

3.Dr. Choudhari, the learned advocate appearing in support of the petition has first contended that Shri Jagdale, who was elected at the Bye-election held on 3rd April, 1997 is one of the five signatories to the requisition notice dated 11th April, 1997, calling for a meeting to consider the No Confidence Motion. According to him, Shri Jagdale could not have participated and voted at the meeting held on 17th April, 1997 as his term of office would have commenced on the date of the 1st meeting of the panchayat as provided in section 28 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). If the vote which has been cast by Shri Jagdale is ignored the Motion cannot be said to have been passed by a majority.

4.In our view, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention. Section 28 provides for the commencement of the term of office of the members elected at the general election of the panchayat. As far as Shri Jagdale is concerned, he has been elected on 3rd April, 1997. His election has been duly published on the Notice Board on 9th April, 1997. Shri Jagdale has attended the meeting on 17th April, 1997, which is his first meeting of the panchayat. He, therefore, is fully entitled to participate and vote at the election.

5.Dr. Chowdhari has next contended that notice of the No Confidence Motion was served upon the petitioners on 15th April, 1997 whereas the meeting was held on 17th April, 1997 which is within a period of 3 days from the date of service.

6.Reliance is placed on Rule 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, which provides as under:-

"4. The secretary shall, at least three clear days before the date fixed for any ordinary meeting, or for any meeting called under section 28, 33 and 43, send or cause to be sent to all the members intimation of the date, time and place and the business to be transacted at such meeting."

According to Dr. Chaudhari since three clear days notice has not been given to the petitioners the meeting as also the consequent No Confidence Motion is vitiated. In our view, The Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 have no application to the meeting held for considering the No Confidence Motion. The meetings of No Confidence Motion are governed by the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No -Confidence) Rules, 1975. Rule 2(3) of the said Rules provides as under."

"2(3) The Tahsildar shall, immediately on receipt of notice under sub-rule (1) satisfy himself that the notice has been given by not less than one-third of the total number of members (other than associate members) who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meting of the panchayat and then convene a special meting for the purpose within seven days from the date of the receipt of such notice."

The aforesaid R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document