JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. In these proceedings an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune on 5th April, 2002 rejecting an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Collector, Satara on 5th October, 2001 is called into question.

3. A resolution of no confidence that had been passed by 8 out of 9 members of a Grampanchayat against the first respondent was set aside by the Collector and the order of the Collector has been affirmed in appeal. The order of the appellate authority has been challenged in these proceedings. The seven petitioners and the first respondent are elected members of the Village Panchayat at Enkur. Elections took place in the year 2000 and the tenure of the elected body was until 2005. The first respondent was elected as Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat. On 23rd August, 2001, 8 members of the Grampanchayat moved an application before the Tahsildar recording that they wanted to move a resolution of no confidence against the first respondent, on the ground that the first respondent had been carrying on the business of the Grampanchayat in accordance with his own whims and fancies without taking the members of the Grampanchayat into confidence and on the ground that the first respondent had been allotting work without proper resolutions. On this application, the Tahsildar by his notice dated 24th August, 2001 convened a special general meeting of the Grampanchayat on 30th August, 2001. There is no dispute about the fact that the special notice was forwarded to all the members of the Grampanchayat including the first respondent. The application moved by the petitioners before the Tahsildar was annexed to the notice. Similarly, there is no dispute about the fact that at the meeting of the Grampanchayat that was held on 30th August, 2001, the resolution of no confidence was passed by a majority of 8 : 1; the sole dissenter being the first respondent.

4. The first respondent challenged the resolution by filing an application before the Additional Collector, Satara. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal on the ground that copies of the requisition which have been submitted for the holding of the special general meeting had not been submitted in seven sets to the Tahsildar and that the notice was not in the prescribed form. The order of the Tahsildar or Collector has been affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that the requirement of furnishing seven copies of the notice to the Tahsildar is not mandatory, but is directory and so long as copies of the notice have been circulated to the Sarpanch who was sought to be removed and to all the members of the Grampanchayat, following which a resolution has been passed as required by the law, it was not open to the Collector to interfere with the said resolution. Moreover, it was sought to be urged that the form of the notice which is prescribed by the Rules, to which a reference would be made hereafter, is not mandatory and so long as the notice contained the statement that the members sought to move a resolution of no confidence and the reasons therefore, that was sufficient compliance with the requirement of the Rules.

6. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the respondents that it was necessary that seven copies of the notice should be sent to the Tahsildar since, the Tahsildar is required to submit the notice to the Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Collector and the Commissioner as well as to the Secretary. The learned Counsel submits that these authorities have a controlling power under section 142 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and having regard to the aforesaid statutory provision, it was necessary that a notice should be filed in seven copies.

7. The power to remove a Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch by moving a resolution of no confide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document