1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Borgaon, Tq.Palam. The present Respondents Nos.3 to 8 gave a requisition to the Tahsil Office for convening a special meeting to consider No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Tahsildar convened the special meeting to be held on 1.10.2012. In the said meeting the motion of No Confidence was passed against the petitioner. Six members were present in the meeting and they all voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion. The said Grampanchayat consist of seven members. The petitioner assailed the said motion of No Confidence before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector, dismissed the dispute. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

3. Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the notice convening the special meeting has to be received by the Tahsildar. The same is the mandate of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Panchayat Act for sake of brevity). According to the learned counsel the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Panchayat Act of giving such notice to the Tahsildar is mandatory. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Yamunabai Laxman Chavan and others Vs. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav and others" reported in 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 1004. The learned counsel submits that in the present case the requisition moved by Respondent Nos.3 to 8 for convening the special meeting was received by the Peshkar and not by the Tahsildar. In view of the same, the meeting and the Resolution of No Confidence stands vitiated. The learned counsel submits that the Additional Collector has not considered the said aspect.

4. Mr. Pulkundwar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader submits that the Tahsildar on the relevant date was on leave. The post of Naib- Tahsildar was vacant. The Peshkar was the senior most Revenue Officer officiating. As per Section 10(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, he would be empowered to receive the said requisition, as for all practical purposes, he would be officiating Tahsildar. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Mrs. Chandrakalabai W/o Kondiram Wankhede Vs. Balaji S/o Shahaji Dhoke and others" reported in 2000(4) Bom.C.R.157.

5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings and the order.

6. The facts undisputed can be culled out as under : (a) The petitioner is sarpanch of Grampanchayat Borgaon. (b) The Respondent Nos.3 to 8 have moved a requisition to the Tahsildar for convening the special meeting to consider the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. (c) The said requisition is received by the Peshkar in the office of the Tahsildar. (c) The notice convening the special meeting has been issued by the Tahsildar. (d) The special meeting was conducted by the Tahsildar and all six members present have voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion. The Grampanchayat consist of seven members.

7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the only contour of controversy would be the powers of the Peshkar to receive the requisition moved by the Respondent Nos.3 to 8 requesting to convene the special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner. Sections 7 and 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code read as under : "7. Revenue Officers in district :-

(1) The State Government shall appoint a Collector (for each district (including the City of Bombay). who shall be in charge of the revenue administration thereof; and a Tahsildar for each taluka who shall be the chief officer entrusted with the local revenue administration of a taluka.

(2) The State Government may appoint one or more Additional Collectors and in each district (including the City of Bombay). and so many Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors (with such designation such as "First", "Second" "Super", etc. Assistants as m