The main legal point established is that a 'no-confidence motion' can be validly passed by a 3/4 majority even if a member is disqualified, and the meeting's location does not invalidate the motion if no prejudice is caused.

Vasanti A. Naik, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bhandara dated 5.10.2015 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act challenging the 'no-confidence motion' passed against the petitioner on 2.6.2015.

3. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of village Gond-Umari in the year 2012. The respondent Nos.4 to 10members of the Gram Panchayat gave a requisition for calling the meeting for considering the 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Sakoli on 27.5.2015. A special meeting for considering the 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner was scheduled on 2.6.2015 and the motion was passed against the petitioner with the majority of seven against two. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the passing of the 'no-confidence motion' against her, filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bhandara under the provisions of Section 35 of the Act. The said appeal was, however, dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.10.2015.

4. Shri Karode, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order as also the 'no-confidence motion' are liable to be set aside inasmuch as the 'no-confidence motion' is not passed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner is woman Sarpanch and the 'no-confidence motion' against woman Sarpanch needs to be carried by a majority of not less than 3/4 of the total members of the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that in all, there are 9 members in Gram Panchayat, Gond-Umari. It is stated that the motion is passed against the petitioner by 7 members. It is stated that out of these 7 members, one of members, respondent No.10-Dhanu Hanu Gajbhiye, was disqualified as member of the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Act and the writ petition by Dhanu Gajbhiye, against the order of disqualification, was dismissed and the order of disqualification as also the order of the appellate authority were upheld by the order dated 10.3.2015 in Writ Petition No.1117 of 2015. It is stated that the fact that the respondent No.10 was disqualified and was not entitled to vote in the special meeting in favour or against the motion was not considered by the Additional Collector while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the meeting was not conducted in the Gram Panchayat office as required by the Act and the same was conducted in the Samaj Mandir. It is submitted that the 'no-confidence motion' is liable to be set aside.

5. Shri Dubey, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the order of the Additional Collector. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, admitted that the respondent No.10 was disqualified under the provisions of the Act and the order of disqualification of the respondent No.10 was upheld by this Court. Hence, the respondent No.10 was not qualified to participate and vote in the meeting. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that still the 'no-confidence motion' was passed by 3/4th majority as six members had voted against the petitioner.

6. Ms Pathan, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 10 fairly admitted that the respondent No.10 was disqualified as a member of the Gram Panchayat and the order of disqualification was upheld by the authorities under the Act. It is submitted that the 'no-confidence motion' was still passed by 3/4 majority as even by excluding the respondent No.10, there were 8 members in the Gram Panchayat and 6 out of them have voted against the petitioner. It is submitted that the 'no-confidence motion' is passed by 3/4 majority. It is further submitted that the petitioner had participated in the meeting in the Samaj Mandir