The computation of the period of notice for convening a meeting for a no confidence motion, and the exclusion of the day of receipt of notice, as interpreted based on the word 'from' and previous judgments.

JUDGMENT - MUNSHI V.G., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. This writ petition is directed, challenging the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in appeal filed under section 35(3C) of Bomaby Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on 5-1-2004, thereby setting aside the order passed by Collector, Jalna, on 17-10-2003, holding that, the no confidence motion passed in the Panchayat meeting on 6-8-2003 is legal and valid.

3. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, points to be decided, etc., it is necessary to acquaint ourselves with the facts and circumstances of the case with which are concerned.

4. The petitioner, in the year 2001, was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Dahigaon. The respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who were the members, on 30-7-2003, moved requisition/notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner. In pursuance to the said notice. Tahsildar, Jafrabad, convened a special meeting on 6-8-2003 and resolution of no confidence was passed in the said meeting.

5. The petitioner has challenged the said resolution mainly on the ground that, in view of the provisions of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and the Rules framed thereunder, the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called Act of 1958 and Rules of 1975), it was incumbent upon the Tahsildar, Jafrabad, to convene a special meeting for the said purpose, within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice. The notice under section 35(1) of the Act of 1958, read with Rule 2(1) of Rules of 1975 was given to and received by Tahsildar on 30-7-2003. In the present case, according to the petitioner, the said meeting was held on 6-8-2003, beyond seven days, against the mandatory provisions of law and, therefore, it is irregular and illegal.

6. In view of the provisions of section 35(2) of the Act of 1958, read with Rule 2(3) of the Rules of 1975, the members of a Panchayat, who desire to move a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or, the Upa-Sarpanch, shall give notice thereof to the Tahsildar, in prescribed form. Section 35(2) of the Act of 1958 and Rule 2(3) of the Rules of 1975, which are relevant for the purposes of deciding the matter in controversy between the parties, are reproduced as under:

"Section 35(2):

Within seven days from the date of receipt by him of the notice under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar shall convene a special meeting of the panchayat at a time to be appointed by him and he shall preside over such meeting. At such special meeting, the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch against whom the motion of no confidence is moved shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings at the meeting (including the right to vote)."

"Rule 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 meeting of the panchayat and then convene a special meeting for the purpose within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice."

The petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court with a case that, the day i.e. 30-7-2003, on which the notice was received, by the Tahsildar, is to be included, while computing the required period of seven days and, therefore, meeting held on 6-8-2003, is beyond statutory period of seven days, is illegal and improper. Therefore, it is necessary to view the case of the petitioner, in the light of provisions of law.

7. Learned Advocate for petitioner Mr. Deshmukh has drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of section 35(2) of the Act of 1958, Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1975, and argued that, it is mandatory to convene a meeting within seven days from the receipt of such notice. It was further pointed out b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document