JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

3. The point which arises for consideration in this petition is whether under sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereianfter called as "the said Act"), it is necessary to hold the meeting of the Panchayat for considering the motion of no confidence, of which the notice has been received by the Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the said Act, within seven days of the receipt of such notice or whether it only requires that a notice calling meeting of the panchayat should be issued within seven days of the receipt of the notice of no confidence motion by the Tahsildar?

4. Few facts, relevant for the decision, are that the petitioners were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat, Khirdi Ganesh, taluka Kopergaon, District Ahmednagar in the elections held in the year, 1997 for a term of five years. The respondent No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch. On the allegations of mismanagement and misuse of the office of the Sarpanch, the petitioners submitted a notice in relation to motion of no confidence against the respondent No. 1 to the Tahsildar under section 35(1) of the said Act. The said notice was received by the Tahsildar on 9th February, 2000. The Tahsildar issued notice on 11-2-2000 convening the meeting of the Panchayat on 21st February, 2000. Accordingly, the special meeting to deal with the motion of no confidence against the respondent No. 1 was held on 21st February, 2000. The motion was passed by majority. The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved, made representation to the Collector of Ahmednagar under section 35(3-B) of the said Act, which came to be rejected by the Collector by its order dated 29-7-2000. The respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector in terms of the provisions contained in section 35(3-C) of the said Act and the same came to be allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik by the impugned judgment and order dated 3-10-2000. Hence, the present petition.

5. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of (Chaitram Dagadoo v. Malegaon Panchayat Samiti and others)1, reported in 1965 Mh.L.J. 663, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that section 35(2) of the said Act nowhere requires the meeting to deal with the no confidence motion to be convened within the period of seven days of the date of receipt of the notice by the Tahsildar from the members under section 35(1) of the said Act, in relation to no confidence motion against the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. Referring to para 7 of the judgment of the Full Bench, it was sought to be contended that the expression "convene" in sub-section (2) of section 35 of the said Act, means "call" or "summon" and does not mean to "hold". It was also contended that the decisions of the Division Bench in an unreported case in the matter of (Shri Ankush Kushaba Margaje v. State of Maharashtra and others)2, Writ Petition No. 2078/2000 dated 4-5-2000, is not a judgment as such, besides being delivered in ignorance of the Full Bench decision. It was further contended that though the decision in Chitram's case was in relation to section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, hereinafter called as "the Samitis Act", the words used in section 72 thereof and section 35 of the said Act being the same, the said decision is fully attracted to the matter in issue. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, therefore, the Additional Commissioner, Nashik erred in setting aside the motion of no confidence passed against the respondent No. 1, by misinterpreting the provisions of section 35(2) of the said Act and, therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, referring to Rules of Interpretation an placing reliance upon the decisions of the Ape

Click Here to Read the rest of this document