The legal principle established in the judgment emphasizes that the fraction of votes required for achieving the mandated majority cannot be ignored and must be rounded off as a complete vote, as per the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

1. I have learned Advocates for the respective sides.

2. Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate seeks leave to delete respondents 13 and 14 as they are the supporters of the petitioner and are formal parties. Leave granted. Deletion is at the risk of petitioner and be carried out forthwith.

3. Respondents 5 to 12 have together moved the requisition motion. All of them have moved a common appeal, under Section 35 of the said Act before the Additional Collector, Ambajogai. Shri Palodkar, learned Advocate, though appears on behalf of respondent No. 5/Caveator, states that he can represent the cause of respondents 5 to 12 in this matter.

4. The brief facts, as set out by the petitioner, are as under:-

(a) The post of Sarpanch of village Rajegaon, Taluka Majalgaon was reserved for "Women - OBC".

(b) The petitioner is a lady Member of the Gram Panchayat and belongs to OBC.

(c) In March 2013, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch.

(d) On 28.11.2014, respondent Nos.5 to 12 - Members of the Gram Panchayat moved a requisition to the respondent No.4 Tahsildar, proposing the motion of no-confidence.

(e) Respondent No.4 received the requisition on 28.11.2014 and on the same date, issued the notice for convening a special meeting on 5.12.2014.

(f) All eleven members were present in the special meeting on 5.12.2014.

(g) The no-confidence motion was carried by 8:3 vote count.

(h) Respondent No.4 rejected the result of the meeting in view of the fact that since the post of Sarpanch was reserved for a lady, the no-confidence motion was required to be passed by 3/4th majority, in the light of the proviso to Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

(i) Respondents 5 to 12, raised a dispute before the Additional District Collector, Ambajogai, challenging the decision of the Tahsildar.

(j) By the impugned judgment, dated 31.11.2015, the Additional District Collector, Ambajogai, on the one hand concluded that the necessary votes for achieving 2/3rd mandate, in favour of the motion, was 8.25 votes and on the other hand, he has concluded that the fraction of .25 needs to be ignored, while accepting the result of the no-confidence motion. He, therefore, concluded that the motion was legally carried.

5. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the statutory authorities has submitted that since the fraction .25, over and above 8 votes was the issue before the competent authority, it has exercised its discretion and has accordingly held that since the fraction was not beyond .5, the vote count could be rounded off to 8.

6. Shri Palodkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 - Caveator submits that the issue raised by the petitioner needs to be ignored. By way of an interim order, the petitioner cannot be reinstated as a Sarpanch in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Sandeepkumar Balmiki and others [(2009) 17 SCC 554].

7. Shri Palodkar, learned Advocate, submits that the motion was set aside by the Tahsildar on technical ground and as such, the said motion can only be said to be incorrect in the technical sense of the term. Nevertheless, the Collector has rightly considered the issue and has correctly passed the impugned order.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides. In my view, this issue is no longer res integra. In the matter of Kailash Vilas Mane Vs. Gram Panchayat, Jamkhed - Writ Petition No. 1425 of 2015, dated 9.2.2015, I have taken a view on similar set of facts by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Tanaji Bhauso Mane and others Vs. Smt. Ushatai Balkrushna Mane and others [2013 (5) ALL MR 604].

9. Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, As set out in the case of Kailash Mane's (supra), read as under:-

"10. In so far as calculation of the votes in the light of the provisions u/s 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act is concerned, this court, in the case of Tanaji Bhauso (supra) has concluded that even