R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri T.G. Gaikwad, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 8, at length.

2. The petitioner has raised two issues for the consideration of this Court and which are as follows :-

A] Whether the principles of natural justice have been violated by the learned Additional Collector, Ambajogai while dealing with the dispute No. 214/VAE/Appeal/06 and whether tjudgment dated 16-09-2014 would be affected by non-adherence of the principles of natural justice.

B] Whether the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner by five is to zero vote count and dislodged her as a Sarpanch, is sustainable.

3. The petitioner has placed before this Court the Roznama pertaining to the hearing of the appeal by the Additional Collector. The Roznama pertains to the period 23-07-2014 till 10-09-2014. It is pointed out that the Advocate representing the petitioner was absent in the proceedings before the Additional Collector on 23-07-2014, 13-08-2014, 28-08-2014, 04-09-2014, 06-09-2014 and 10-09-2014. The Presiding Officer was unavailable on account of his official work on 23-07-2014, 28-08-2014 and 06-09-2014. The matter was closed for judgment on 10-09-2014 and the impugned judgment was delivered by the Additional Collector on 16-09-2014.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Management of M/s. M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported at (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 48 and the judgment of this Court dated 25-06-2014 delivered in Writ Petition No. 4696 of 2014 in the matter of Smt. Ankitabai Sahebrao Nikalje Vs. The Additional Collector, Ambajogai and others.

5. The petitioner further contends that the impugned judgment is an outcome of the non-adherence of the principles of natural justice. The respondents were given the opportunity to address the mind of the Additional Collector. Just because the Advocate was absent on 10-09-2014, the Additional Collector heard the respondents and closed the matter for judgment. The impugned judgment is, therefore, delivered exparte.

6. The learned Advocate has referred to paragraph Nos. 13 and 25 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Management of M/s. M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra), the same are reproduced here-in-below :-

"13. What is thus important in the modern administration is the fairness of procedure with elimination of element of arbitrariness. The State functionaries must act fairly and reasonably. That is, however, not the same thing to state that they must act judicially or quasi judicially. In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, Mukherjea, J., said (SCC p. 387 Para 8: SCR p.30):

"The administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly."

"25. The management need not establish particular prejudice for want of such opportunity. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagrnohan, Chinnappa Reddy, J., after referring to the observation of Donaldson, J., in Altco Ltd. v. Sutherland, said that the concept that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done is basic to our system and it is concerned not with a case of actual injustice but with the appearance of injustice or possible injustice. It was emphasized that the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary."

7. It is, therefore, submitted that for ensuring the fairness of the procedure and for elimination of the element of arbitrariness, the principles of natural justice have to be adhered to. The non-adheren