JUDGMENT:- Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

This petition is directed against the order passed by the Collector Raigad on 4th November, 2009 and maintained upon appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, by judgment dated 1st December, 2009.

2. Facts which are material for deciding this petition and about which there can be no dispute are as under -

On 16th March, 2008 elections were held at village Pali, taluka Sudhagad for electing members of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was one of the members elected at those elections. On 30th June, 2008 the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch at the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat. On 28th August, 2009 respondent Nos.2 to 13,15 and 16 served notice under section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch No Confidence Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). Pursuant to the said notice, on 28th August, 2009 the Tahsildar, Pali Sudhagad convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 2nd September, 2009. This meeting was accordingly held on 2nd September, 2009 and was presided over by the Tahsildar Pali At that meeting, a 'no confidence motion' was passed against the petitioner by two-third majority. At that meeting 4 members of the Gram Panchayat were absent. Out of the remaining 12 members, 11 voted in favour of the resolution. The petitioner was the lone voter against motion of no confidence. The Tahsildar found that the motion was carried by a majority of 2/3rds of the members entitled to sit and vote at the meeting, and therefore, declared that the resolution was passed.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute under sub-section [3(b)] of section 35 of the Act. Among other things, he submitted that none of the members present at the meeting had moved the motion of no confidence nor was it seconded by any member present. He pointed out that though no such resolution was moved, the Tahsildar put it to vote even before any discussion could take place on the resolution. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the resolution allegedly passed in the meeting held on 2nd September, 2009 was not legal.

4. Respondent No.1? the Tahsildar, who had presided over the meeting submitted a reply before the Collector, and so did the members of the Gram Panchayat, who had voted in favour of the resolution. They stated that the resolution was properly passed and therefore the Tahsildar had rightly so declared.

After considering the rival contentions, the Collector held that the dispute raised by the petitioner did not disclose any deficiency in the proceedings at the meeting held on 2nd September, 2009. He held that the resolution was properly moved and passed at the meeting.

5. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division came to be likewise dismissed by judgment dated 1st December, 2009, which has been impugned in this petition.

6. In pursuance of notice issued on 14th December, 2009 respondent No.1? Tahsildar Pali has filed an affidavit-in-reply reporting that the proceedings at meeting held on 2nd September, 2009 were proper and no confidence motion was properly passed.

7. Members of the Gram Panchayat who had voted against the resolution, respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 to 10 & 12, 14 & 15 (hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents) also filed their affidavits stating that the resolution of 'no-confidence' was rightly passed and that the petitioner had no right to continue to act as Sarpanch.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, contesting respondents as wel1 as the learned AGP. The learned counsel for the parties painstakingly took me through relevant provisions of the law, and also the judicial pronouncements which have a bearing on the question.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings of meeting held on 2nd September, 2009, annexed to the petition at Exhibit "B" show that the proceedings commence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document