JUDGMENT :- Heard learned Counsel for respective parties Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. In both the petitions challenge is raised to the order in respect of dismissal of the appeal presented by respective petitioners to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, on 19-12-2009, thereby confirming the order passed by Additional Collector, Osmanabad, dated 20-10-2009.

3. The dispute pertains to no confidence motion moved against petitioners, who are holding the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, respectively of Village Panchayat Ratnapur, Taluka Kalamb, District Osmanabad. The election to the members of village Panchayat was held in the year 2007 and petitioners in both the petitions are elected as members of village Panchayat. On 10th August 2009, six members of village Panchayat moved a common requisition to the Tahsildar requesting for convening a special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence moved against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. On 12th August, 2009, Tahsildar, Kallam, issued notices to the members prescribing date and venue of the special meeting as 17-8-2009. A common notice came to be issued by Tahsildar to the members calling upon them to attend the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion moved against petitioners in both the petitions on 17-8-2009.

4. According to petitioners, notice was not served on them or any adult male member in the family and merely evidence has been created in respect of affixing of notices on the door of residences of petitioners. It is further contended that even as per record, notices are not in fact affixed on the door of residential premises of petitioners, but same are affixed on the residences of some other villagers. In the absence of petitioners, motion of no confidence is moved against them and same is carried with a majority of six members voting in favour of the motion.

5. Petitioners in both the petitions challenge validity of motion of no confidence carried against them in the special meeting convened on 17-8-2009 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that common requisition for convening a meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch both, is not permissible and convening of such meeting and moving the requisition itself, is in violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 2 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (for short, "Rules of 1975").

6. Another objection raised is in respect of failure to issue notice in respect of motion of no confidence to the petitioners, which has resulted in taking away the valuable right vested in them in attending the meeting and addressing the members with a view to answer the charges levelled against them. The net result of failure of serving notice of the meeting is deprivation of right of office bearer i.e. petitioners to address the meeting with a view to answer charges, which right according to petitioners, is fundamental in character and essence of democratic functioning of local self bodies.

7. That, so far as objection raised by petitioners in respect of moving of common requisition by six members of village Panchayat requesting the Tahsildar to convene special meeting for consideration of no confidence motor is concerned, a copy of requisition is placed on record at Exhibit-A. On perusa of Exhibit-A, it appears that six members have signed the requisition, which notes three grounds in support of the motion. The requisition is common or respect of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch and grounds in support of motion of no confidence moved against office bearers are also common in respect of both the petitioners. Surprisingly, it appears that, the Tahsildar has endorsed on the requisition noting therein that six members have presented a notice in person and all the members have signed in presence of Tahsildar. The reference in the noting is only for calling

Click Here to Read the rest of this document