The word "convene" in sub-section (2) of section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, as it stood before it was amended in 1964, meant "call" or "summon", and not "assemble" or "bring together".

Headnote:
PANCHAYAT SAMITI - MOTION OF NO-CONFIDENCE - NOTICE - MEETING - INTERPRETATION OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 72 OF THE MAHARASHTRA ZILLA PARISHADS AND PANCHAYAT SAMITIS ACT - WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY TO HOLD A MEETING WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OR WHETHER ONLY A NOTICE CALLING A MEETING WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED WITHIN TEN DAYS.
Fact of the Case:

A motion of no-confidence was given against the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti under sub-section (1) of section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. The Chairman issued a notice calling a meeting of the Samiti for the purpose of considering the motion of no-confidence on June 27, 1964. A meeting was accordingly held on June 27, 1964, in which the motion of no-confidence in the Chairman was carried by a majority of 14 to 9. A special civil application was filed, contending that the meeting held on June 27, 1964, was illegal as it was not held within ten days from the date on which the notice of no-confidence motion was received by the Chairman.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that sub-section (2) of section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, as it stood before it was amended in 1964, only required that a notice calling a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti should be issued within ten days of the receipt of the notice of no-confidence motion, and that it was not necessary to hold the meeting within ten days of the receipt of the notice.
Issues: Whether under sub-section (2) of section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, as this section stood before it was amended by the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samiti (Second Amendment) Act, 1964, it was necessary to hold a meeting of the panchayat Samiti for the consideration of a motion of no-confidence of which notice had been given under sub-section (1), within ten days of the receipt of the notice or whether this sub-section only required that a notice calling a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti should be issued within ten days of the receipt of the notice of no-confidence motion?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the word "convene" in sub-section (2) of section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act to mean "call" or "summon", and not "assemble" or "bring together". The Court held that this interpretation was necessary to give effect to the intention of the Legislature that a person who had lost the confidence of the members should not continue in office, and to avoid rendering sub-section (2) of section 49 and sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 72 unworkable.
Final Decision: The Court held that the meeting held on June 27, 1964, was not illegal, as it was not necessary to hold the meeting within ten days of the receipt of the notice of no-confidence motion. The Court discharged the rule and made no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

OHAINANI C. J. -The petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the members of the Panchayat Samiti of Malegaon. Respondent No.2 was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. On May 7, 1964, respondents Nos. 3 and land 12 other members of the Panchayat Samiti gave a notice of a motion of no -confidence in respondent No.2 under sub -s. (1) of s. 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panohayat Samitis Act. This notice was received by respondent No.2" on May 7, 1964. On May 16, 1964, he issued a notice calling a meeting of the Samiti for the purpose of considering the motion of no -confidence on June 27, 1964. A meeting was accordingly held on June 27, 1964 -, in which the motion of no -confidence in respondent No.2 was carried by a majority of 14 to 9. The petitioner thereafter filed the present special civil application, in which he has contended that the meeting, which was held on June 27, 1964, at which the motion of no -confidence was passed was illegal, as it was not held within ten days from the date on which the notice of no -confidence motion was received by respondent No.2. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus or, any other suitable writ or direction to be issued to the Panchayat Samiti, respondent No. 1 not to give effect to the motion of no -confidence passed in the meeting held on June 27, 1964. The Division Bench before which the application came up for hearing decided to refer it to a larger Bench in view of what it regarded to be conflicting decisions in Haribhau v. State,1 and Popat Ragho v. Damu Shankar. -

2. The question, which arises for our consideration, may be formulated as under:

"Whether under sub -section (2) of section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, as this section stood before it was amended by the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samiti (Second Amendment) Act, 1964, it was necessary to hold a meeting of the panchayat Samiti for the consideration of a motion of no -confidence of which notice had been given under sub -section (1), within ten days of the receipt of the notice or whether this sub -section only required that a notice calling a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti should be issued within ten days of the receipt of the notice of no -confidence motion ?"

3. In order to consider this question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Sub -section (1) of s. 72 stated that a motion of no -confidence in the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti should be made by a requisition from not less than one -fourth of the total number of the members after giving a notice thereof in such manner as might be prescribed. Sub -section (2) of this section provided that the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti shall convene a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti to consider such motion within ten days of the receipt of the notice. Sub -section (4) provided that if no such meeting was convened by the Chairman of a Panohayat Samiti within the period specified in sub -so (2), all or any of the members who have given notice of motion of no -confidence, might forward to the Commissioner a copy of the notice and request him to convene a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti and that the Commissioner shall notwithstanding anything contained in S. 118 read with sub -s. (3) of S. 111 within ten days of the receipt of such communication by him convene the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti for the consideration of the motion. The words "a special meeting" and "the special meeting" were substituted for the words "a meeting" and "the meeting" in sub -ss. (2) and (4) by Maharashtra Act XXXV of 1963. Sub -section (5) lays down that the meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section shall not, for any reason, be adjourned. Sub -section (4) of S. 111 provides that fifteen clear days notice of an ordinary meeting, and ten clear days notice of a special meeting, specifying the time and p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document