JUDGMENT - KARNIK D.G., J.:---In pursuance of the notice before admission issued by this Court the respondents 1 to 8 appeared through their respective Counsel. Respondent No. 9 though served is absent. By consent of all, heard finally.

2. Respondent No. 4 was elected as a Sarpanch of respondent No. 3 Village Panchayat. Respondents 5 to 8 are the elected members of respondent No. 3 Village Panchayat who are supporting respondent No. 4 Sarpanch. The petitioners and respondent No. 9 are members of Village Panchayat who had moved the resolution of no confidence against respondent No. 4.

3. The petitioners and the respondent No. 9 gave a notice of their desire to move a motion of no confidence against respondent No. 2 to the Tahsildar under section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short the Act) read with Rule No. 2 of Bombay Village Panchayat, Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules). The notice was accompanied by 7 additional copies thereof and was in the form prescribed under Rule 2 of the Rules. In pursuance of the said notice dated 30th May, 2001, a special meeting of the Village Panchayat was called by the Tahsildar on 4th June, 2001. In the meaning the resolution of no confidence was passed by a majority of 2/3 of the total members of Panchayat. 10 out of 15 members voted in favour of the resolution. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 voted against resolution. The resolution was thus carried by the requisite majority. The Tahsildar accordingly declared that the resolution was passed and sent the communication of the passing of the resolution to the concerned authorities under Rule 3 of the Rules.

4. The respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by resolution filed a dispute to the Collector under section 35(3-B) of the Act. The learned Additional Collector who heard the appeal held that notice was proper but one line in the verification clause of the notice was not typed and that notice was not served on the Zilla Parishad by the Tahsildar as was required under Rule 2(2). The Additional Collector held that defects viz. (i) an error in the typing of the verification clause committed by the petitioners and (ii) non-service of notice on Zilla Parishad by Tahsildar did not affect the merits of the resolution and therefore dismissed the dispute raised by respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved by decision of the Additional Collector, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal under section 35(3-C) of the Act to the Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner by an order dated 28th September, 2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Collector. The learned Additional Commissioner recorded following findings of facts.

(1) The verification clause was not properly typed. Only the words "we declare" were typed and the rest of the words "the facts stated above are true to the best of our information and knowledge" had remained to be typed in the notice.

(2) Though seven additional copies of the notice as required by the Rules were filed by petitioner, and Tahsildar had sent copies to all but one authorities mentioned in Rule 2(2) of the Rules, the copy was not sent to the Zilla Parishad.

5. In view of this, the Commissioner held that the mandatory provisions of the rules were violated and therefore, resolution of no confidence was invalid. The two findings of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner are the concurrent findings of facts and cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction, as it is not shown that the said findings are based on no evidence or are so perverse that no reasonable man could have reached those conclusions. It is however, submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the said two findings, the Additional Commissioner ought not to have interfered with the order of the Additional Collector.

6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Rules read as under:

"(2). The notice under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by seven additional copies thereof, and the T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document