R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the passing of the "No Confidence" motion and the rejection of their Gram Panchayat dispute by the impugned orders.

2. In the first petition, the petitioner Ashok Rambhau Kalane is the Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Limpangaon, Taluka Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. In the second petition, the petitioner Manjulabai Balasaheb Ovol is the Sarpanch who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category. Both have suffered the No Confidence Motion by 3/4th majority and have been voted out of their positions in the special meeting convened on 09/11/2016.

3. Mr. Mantri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of both the petitioners has tendered the proposed amendment in order to bring on record that two members namely Smt. Padambai Tule and Mr. Ravi Ujagare have been disqualified by the order dated 23/12/2016 passed by the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar on the ground of failing to submit their caste validity certificates. Such disqualification is effected from the date of filing their nomination papers. Learned Advocates for the respondents do not oppose and the amendment is permitted. The order of the Additional Collector dated 23/12/216 is taken on record.

4. I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. I find that the following judgments need to be considered while deciding this case:-

1. Vishwas Pandurang Mokal Vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and others, 2011(3) MhLJ 501 - Full Bench.

2. Punjaji Shamrao Kadam and others Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and others, 2012(6) MhLJ463

3. Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale Vs Navnath Tukaram Kakde and others, 2014(6) MhLJ 804 - Full Bench.

5. There is no dispute as regards the following factors :-

[a] The Limpangaon Gram Panchayat has 17 members who are duly elected.

[b] One member was disqualified on 29/04/2016.

[c] 12 persons (11 who have signed) are said to have moved a requisition dated 09/11/2016 proposing a No Confidence Motion against both the petitioners and the said notice was served upon the Tahsildar of Taluka Shrigonda.

[d] On 09/11/2016, the Tahsildar, after receiving the requisition, issued a notice for convening a special meeting on 16/11/2016 for considering the motion moved by 11 persons.

[e] Both the petitioners have received copies of the said notice.

[f] The Sarpanch Smt. Manjulabai claimed to be suffering from giddiness and claimed to be hospitalized and therefore did not participate in the meeting.

[g] Independent proceedings and an independent vote count was taken with regard to both the petitioners.

[h] The Up-Sarpanch suffered No Confidence Motion by a vote count of 12 in favour of the motion and 3 against the motion (3/4th majority).

[i] The Sarpanch Smt. Manjulabai suffered no confidence by a vote count of 12 in favour of the motion and 3 against the motion (3/4th majority).

[j] The Gram Panchayat Dispute No. 113/2016 and 112/2016 filed by both these petitioners under section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act were rejected by the competent authority by the impugned order dated 17/12/2016.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Full Bench of this Court has ruled in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 in the matter of Vishwas Pandurang (supra) to conclude that the motion has to be moved. Merely placing the notice signed by 11 persons would not tantamount to actually moving of a motion. No such motion was moved in the special meeting by anybody and hence the business transacted in the special meeting is rendered void-ab-initio.

7. The contention of the petitioners in this context can be considered under Section 35(3-A) of the Act which reads as under :-

"Section 35(3-A) :- If the motion is not moved or is not carried by a majority of not less than two third of or, as the case may be, three fourth, of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat, no such fresh motion shall be moved against the Sarpanch or,