JUDGMENT - RADHAKRISHNAN S., J.:---By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31-10-2002 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Raigad and also the subsequent order dated 30-12-2002 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner in an appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Additional Collector.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner herein was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Waghoshi on 4-2-1999 and she was to remain as a Sarpanch upto 3-2-2004. It appears that some of the members of the said Gram Panchayat wanted to move a resolution of no confidence motion against the petitioner herein as per section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. In accordance with the requisition, the Tahsildar, Sudhagad had convened a special meeting for that purpose on 7-10-2002. On 7-10-2002, the Tahsildar held a special meeting of no confidence motion wherein the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend herself with regard to the motion of no confidence. The petitioner orally defend herself contending that she was not guilty of any of the charges and had also made a written submission to the Presiding Officer contending that the complaints made against her were not genuine and were false. By the said written submission, the petitioner had also requested that the voting of no confidence be taken by secret ballots. It may also be noted here that in support of the petitioner, one, Uttam Narayan Deshmukh, a member of the Gram Panchayat also spoke in favour of the petitioner opposing the motion of no confidence. However, other members of the Gram Panchayat as well as Upa-Sarpanch Mr. Surendra Balkrishna Khedekar justified the motion of no confidence. One Mr. Vithoba Sadhuram Tupe also supported the petitioner contending that the no confidence motion was not justified.

3. The minutes of the Tahsildar's meeting which was held on 7-10-2002 also indicate that the Presiding Officer had explained regarding the voting by secret ballot paper and also the likelihood of members committing mistakes in using such secret ballot papers. Thereupon six members who had signed the requisition for no confidence motion categorically opined that the voting should be by show of hand. In view thereof, two of the nine members who were belonging to Scheduled Caste had also stated that the voting should be by show of hand. As the majority of the members of the Panchayat were of the view that the voting should be by show of hand, the voting of no confidence motion took place by show of hand. Infact, three specific reasons were given for expressing no confidence against the petitioner. With regard to those three reasons, the petitioner had not only replied orally but also by writing and the two other members had also supported her and had spoken against the no confidence motion. Ultimately, the said motion was put to vote after the said discussion by the Presiding Officer and six of the members had voted in favour of the aforesaid motion of no confidence and three of the members were against the aforesaid motion of no confidence. In view of the fact that the majority i.e., 6 out of 9 had supported the motion of no confidence as per the provisions of section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the Presiding Officer has recorded that the aforesaid resolution for motion of no confidence was duly passed. It may be noted that at the bottom of minutes which were recorded by the Tahsildar being the Presiding Officer, the petitioner has also signed the same alongwith other members of the said Panchayat.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid passing of no confidence motion, the petitioner had approached the Additional District Collector by way of a dispute. One of the main contentions of the petitioner before the learned Additional Collector was that the aforesaid motion of no confidence was not moved by any member and also not seconded by any member. In view thereof, the aforesaid passing of no confidence motion has to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document