B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri T.R. Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. I and 2, Shri R.N. Ghuge, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 12, Shri Sonone, learned Counsel for respondent no. 13. Looking to the nature of controversy we have heard matter by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.

2. By inviting attention to the proceedings of no confidence meeting conducted on 06.08.2013 Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners points out that the motion of no confidence was not moved therein as mandated by the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, particularly Rule 17 thereof. He submits that thus the motion of no confidence was not moved on 06.08.2013, and hence, the second such attempt in pursuance of notice dated 07.12.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 Tahsildar convening meeting on 13.12.2013 is, without jurisdiction and bad. He relies upon the express language of Section 35(3A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for said purpose. In order to show how the motion is required to be moved and the ensuing consequences, if those mandatory compliance are not made, he relies upon a Division Bench judgment reported at 2013 (3) Mh.L.J. 133 : [2013 (3) ALL MR 16] (Vishnu Ramchandra Patil. vrs. Group Gram Panchayat, Kharivli and others), particularly paragraph no.8. He points out that a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported at 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 500 : [2011 (3) ALLMR 778) (Shri Viswas Pandurang Mokal vrs. Group Gram Panchayat) is relied upon by the said Division Bench. He further contends that respondents were aware of requirement of moving and cannot claim ignorance of provisions of law and hence, as there is a failure to comply with Rule 17, the provisions of bar contemplated by Section 35(3-A) of the Act operates.

3. Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ghuge, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 12 oppose the petition. Shri Ghuge, learned Counsel relies on the Division Bench judgment reported at 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 43 : [1997 (4) ALL MR 267) (Prakash Barku Patil vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), particularly paragraph no.7 to urge that provisions relating to bar and provisions of Meeting Rules need harmonious construction and this Division Bench has rightly found that the words "not moved" are synonymous with "when motion is not carried out". He also seeks support from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1999 SC 1607 (Ramesh vrs. Sheshrao and others) to urge that when meeting in which such motion is cleared by majority is found vitiated on technical grounds, bar under Section 35(3-A) does not operate.

4. In the background of arguments advanced we have perused the papers, as also considered the judgments. On 06.08.2013 a meeting was conducted by the competent officer and petitioners did not attend said meeting. The proceedings show that no confidence was expressed on 10 counts and after debate on those 10 points, voting by secret ballot was taken. 9 Members voted in favour of motion, while only One opposed it. The Presiding Officer accordingly declared that motion of no confidence was carried out on 6.8.2013.

5. In further challenge to this resolution before the Collector, Buldhana the said Authority has found service of notice of said meeting upon petitioners defective. It also found that there could not have been a joint notice of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch. Lastly, need to adhere to provisions of Rule 17 in the light of Full Bench Judgment (supra), is also emphasized. Thus, on technical grounds a motion of no confidence which became a resolution and otherwise cleared by majority is, found to be vitiated. It was therefore, set aside.

6. After it was set aside, the respondents submitted fresh requisition on 07.12.2013 and accordingly the Tahsildar and Presiding Officer has issued a notice convenin