R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. The issue raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition for my consideration is, whether, section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act mandates that each and every member of the Gram Panchayat, while participating in a special meeting discussing "No Confidence Motion", shall necessarily have to speak and shall be under a compulsion to speak. The petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Kalmadi, Taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar. The Gram Panchayat comprises of 09 members. On 4-6-2014, more than l/3rd members of the Gram Panchayat moved a requisition proposing a motion of no confidence against the petitioner-Sarpanch. The Tahasildar, who received the requisition, issued the notice dated 4-6-2014 for convening a special meeting on 10-6-2014. Accordingly, the special meeting was held on 10-6-2014. All 09 members were present in the said meeting. The motion was carried by six votes as against three and thereby, the mandate of section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act was satisfied.

2. The petitioner raised the Gram Panchayat Dispute No. 3/2014 before the Additional Collector, Nandurbar. By the impugned judgment dated 30-9-2014 the said dispute was rejected and it was concluded that the No Confidence Motion was valid and the petitioner was, therefore, removed as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat.

3. The petitioner, while stating the above recorded facts, submits that a single ground is being raised in this petition. According to the petitioner, only three members, namely, Shri Gorakh Jhambar Pawar, Smt. Minabai Gajesingh Rajput and Smt. Sumabai Uttarya Bhil have participated in the said proceedings. As such, though the motion was carried by six as against three votes, the number of votes in favour of the motion is immaterial since the mandate of section 35 requires that in such a meeting while considering the motion of no confidence, each and every member present in the meeting shall necessarily have to speak either in favour or against the motion.

4. The petitioner points out, from the conclusions drawn by the Additional Collector which are based on the record of the proceedings, that only above mentioned three members had spoken and five members had not spoken. The petitioner in his capacity as Sarpanch had presented his case and had refuted all the allegations made against him and had prayed that the motion be defeated in the light of the extraordinary work done by him in the said Gram Panchayat.

5. The petitioner further submits that if all members do not speak in such a special meeting, the business in such meeting shall be rendered a nullity. Reliance is placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court (Coram: A.P. Shah and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.), delivered in the case of Ashok Krishnakant Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported at 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 197.

6. The contention of the petitioner is specific. The petitioner interprets section 35 to mean that each and every member of the Gram Panchayat has to necessarily and compulsorily speak in the meeting. The silence of even a single member would be fatal to the business transacted in such meeting.

7. The petitioner specifically points out paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Ashok Mehta's judgment (supra). It would be apposite to reproduce the said paragraphs as under:

"4. The main issue that requires to be considered is whether a resolution of no confidence passed at a meeting during the course of which members constituting the Village Panchayat were not permitted to speak, would be invalid. The Presiding Officer took the view that it was only the Sarpanch against whom the resolution was sought to be passed who was entitled to speak at the meeting. Reference may be made to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 which provides as follows:--

"35. (1) A motion of no confidence may be moved by not less than one fifth of the total number of the members w