COURT'S ORDER:- Since, in both the petitions, a common question of law is involved, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6811/2007 was Sarpanch and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6895/2007 was sarpanch of Grampanchayat Jamthi, Tal. Bodwad, Dist. Jalgaon. A notice of no-confidence motion was moved against the said petitioners and subsequently a motion of no-confidence came to be passed in a Meeting held on 7th August, 2007, by a majority of six against one in a Grampanchayat, which is consisting of nine members.

3. A dispute as provided under section 35(3B) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and further appeal as provided under section 35 (3C) of the said Act, before the Collector and Divisional Commissioner came to be rejected by the orders dated 29th September, 2007 and 2nd November, 2007. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petitions.

4. Shri V. M. Chate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both these petitions, submits that the notice of Meeting of no-confidence motion was not served on the Sarpanch. He submits that a farce was created about the service of notice by showing that the notice was served on the son of the petitioner Sarpanch. He submits that the son of the Sarpanch is a student of Engineering and taking education at Jalgaon, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, a notice could have been served upon him.

5. Shri V. M. Chate, learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Krishnakant Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra and others. reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 197 in support of the proposition that the weight of numbers is not an answer to a fundamental defect and the Court ought not to countenance a suppression of the right to speak by a supposed justification on the basis of the number who cast their lot in support of a resolution.

6. He also relies on the Judgment of this Court in the case of lndubai Vedu Khairnar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003(2) Born.C.R. 239 in support of the proposition that the service of notice on the person against whom no-confidence motion is being considered, is mandatory and that non service of such notice would vitiates the proceedings.

7. Shri R. N. Dhorde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.6 to 11 in both the writ petitions, submits that motion of no-confidence has been passed by majority of six against one. He submits that the notice was duly served on the son of the Sarpanch-petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6811/2007, as it was reported that the petitioner had gone for pilgrimage to Zarkhand. He further submits that both the learned authorities below have concurrently held against the petitioners. Therefore, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is warranted in the present petitions.

8. In the case of lndubai Vedu Khaimar vs. State of Maharashtra, and others (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that a notice on the member against whom no confidence motion is moved has to be validly proved.

9. Insofar as the reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Krishnakant Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), is concerned, in the Meeting held for considering no-confidence motion, one of the members of the Grampanchayat had sought permission to address the Meeting. However, the same was rejected by the Tahsildar and being aggrieved thereby, the matter was carried up to this Court. In the said case, upon considering the relevant Rules, the Division Bench of this Court has reached to the conclusion that it was necessary to follow the Rules, which requires that the member should be given an opportunity to address the Meeting. It was held that non following of the said Rules, vitiate the proceedings of the Meeting. It has been held that the weight of numbers is not an answer to a fundamental defect and that right of a memb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document