The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Rule 2(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch No Confidence Motion) Rules were held to be directory, and a no-confidence motion does not require the same level of hearing as in disciplinary proceedings.

Heard Shri A V. Gawande, Advocate for petitioner, Shri A S. Sonare, AG.P. for respondent No.1 to 3 and Shri P. S. Patil Advocate for respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8. None present for respondent Nos. 4 and 9.

Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.

2. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in Appeal No. BVP/35(3)(c)/08-09 of Brahmi whereby the appeal of the petitioner to challenge order of Additional Collector in the proceedings No. 21/69/08-09 Mouja Brahmi Tahsil Darwha, District: Yavatmal, was rejected.

3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated thus.

Petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Village Gram Panchayat, Brahmi from 18-11-2008. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, members of Gram Panchayat, Brahmi, gave a notice to respondent No. 3 - Tahsildar for moving No Confidence Motion against petitioner. Respondent No.3 - Tahsi1dar issued notice to the members of the Gram Panchayat for the special meeting for this purpose, which was scheduled on 24-11-2008. On 24-11-2008, the special meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion was convened at 2.00 p.m. petitioner raised written objection before respondent No.3 - Presiding Officer of the said special meeting regarding non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 2(4) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch Motion of No Confidence) Rules. According to the petitioner, Tahsildar had failed to provide the text of No Confidence Motion and charges against the petitioner. According to the petitioner he was not given opportunity of hearing, as he was not supplied with the notice under Rule 2(1) of the said rules along with the notice which was sent to him. The motion was carried by 4:2. The passing of this resolution of noconfidence against the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector by filing dispute under section 35(3)(b) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The Additional Collector, however, found that the service of notice was proper. He also found that the petitioner was heard and No Confidence Motion was properly carried. Therefore, he dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.

4. The unsuccessful petitioner then filed appeal before the respondent No.1 - Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati to challenge the said order of the Additional Collector. Learned Additional Commissioner - respondent No.1 by his order dated 18-2-2009 dismissed the said appeal. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized, submitting that the mandatory provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch No Confidence Motion) Rules, Rule 2 of the said rules was not complied by the Tahsildar. In fact the notice received by the petitioner was not accompanied with the copy of the No Confidence Motion, which was issued by the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8 under Rule 2(i). It was not at all supplied. Therefore, the petitioner could not make his defence in the special meeting called by Tahsildar in which the alleged said No Confidence Motion was carried. According to him, the said rule was mandatory and because the copy of the No Confidence Motion was not served on him, along with the notice for special meeting, no proper opportunity was given to him to defend himself in the special meeting which was called for consideration of No Confidence Motion. Thus according to him, he was not granted reasonable opportunity under principles of natural justice. Proceedings of the special meeting held by Tahsildar dated 24-11-2008 is vitiated. He has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 1004, Yamunabai Laxman Cllavan and others vs. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav and others to contend that although the provisions of Rule 2(2) of the said Rules are held to be directory, the petitioner could not take effective part in the special meeting, as he was not sup