JUDGMENT - CHANDRACHUD D.Y. (Dr.), J.: - Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The petitioners are elected members of the Gram Panchayat of Chimbli in the Taluka of Khed in the District of Pune. The first respondent in Writ Petition No. 5114 of 2003 is the Sarpanch while the first respondent in companion Writ Petition No. 5115 of 2003 is the Upa Sarpanch. On 25th February, 2003, the petitioners issued a requisition to the Tahsildar, Khed in their capacity as members of the Gram Panchayat proposing to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch. The notice spelt out the reasons on the basis of which the requisitionists had decided to move the motion. Immediately thereafter on 25th February, 2003 the Tahsildar addressed notices to all the members of the Gram Panchayat including the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch recording that a requisition had been received from Shri Panduarang Vishnu Bankar and five other members of the Panchayat for moving a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch. The Tahsildar intimated that he had convened a meeting on 4th March, 2003 at 3 p.m., in the office of the Gram Panchayat, In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, a meeting was held on the appointed day in which the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch participated. A resolution of no confidence was passed by a majority of six members voting in favour thereof. Three members of the Gram Panchayat including the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch voted against the resolution.

3. An appeal was thereafter filed by the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch before the Collector under the provisions of section 35(3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Collector allowed the appeal on the ground that though the Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch had been furnished a notice by the Tahsildar of the fact that a requisition had been received for moving a motion of no confidence, in pursuance whereof a meeting was convened on 4th March, 2003, a copy of the requisition itself had not been furnished which contained the reasons on the basis of which the requisitionists had sought to move the motion. The Collector accordingly set aside the resolution. An appeal was thereafter filed under section 35(3-C) before the Commissioner who has affirmed the decision of the Collector.

The question which arises in these proceeding turns upon the construction of the provisions of section 35 of the Act and the Rules which have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 176. The Rules in question are titled "The Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. Section 35 of the Act deals with a motion of no-confidence and sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (3-A), (3-B), (3-C) and 3(D) provide thus:

"35. (1) A motion of no-confidence may be moved by not less than one-third of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat against the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof to the Tahsildar as may be prescribed.

(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 for considering the motion of no-confidence at the office 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.

(3) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat, the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall cease to hold office after seven days from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document