Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Shantabai Kautik Ghule - Petitioner
Versus
The Collector Aurangabad & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7479 of 2017
Decided On : 13-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Gore Ravindra Vitthal
For the Respondents: Shri B.A. Shinde, Shri D.Y. Nandedkar
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation and application of Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act in determining the validity of the no confidence motion requisition and the timing of the special meeting.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Motion of No Confidence - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - Section 35
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the passing of a no confidence motion against her as the lady Sarpanch of the village panchayat. She argued that the requisition notice for the motion was tendered beyond the permitted seven days and that she was not served with the notice of the special meeting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the requisition notice was tendered within the seven-day period as mandated by Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. It also determined that the Petitioner had received the notice of the special meeting, and her argument was unsustainable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timing of the requisition notice for the no confidence motion and the Petitioner's claim of not being served with the notice of the special meeting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted and applied Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act to determine the validity of the requisition notice and the timing of the special meeting. It also considered the evidence of the Petitioner's receipt of the notice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the Petitioner's arguments.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.04.2017 by which, the Additional Collector, Aurangabad has rejected Dispute Application No.Kannad/CR/10/2017 filed by the Petitioner challenging the passing of no confidence motion against her on 21.02.2017.
2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides.
3. The contentions of the Petitioner can be summarized as under:-
(a) The "no-confidence" requisition circulated by 07 members out of 09 of the Barkatpur-Raigaon Group Gram Panchayat is dated 10.02.2017.
(b) The said requisition is said to be tendered to the Tahasildar on 15.02.2017 against the Petitioner, who is a lady Sarpanch of the said village panchayat.
(c) The special meeting was convened on 21.02.2017, which can be said to be beyond the requisite 07 days period, within which such special meeting is to be convened.
(d) No notice was ever served upon the Petitioner by the Tahasildar, though all other members have received the said notice.
(e) By the circular dated 24.04.2017 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department, State of Maharashtra, the charge with the Additional Collector to deal with all disputes pertaining to the Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samiti/Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat/Gram Panchayat elections, has been taken away and vested only with the District Collector.
(f) The Additional Collector, who was earlier handling such matters on delegation of authority, has been divested of such jurisdiction.
(g) As no notice was served on the Petitioner, she was not present in the special meeting on 21.02.2017.
4. The learned AGP submits that earlier the affairs with regard to the elections and all other disputes pertaining to the Gram Panchayats or Municipal Councils as mentioned in the circular dated 24.04.2017, could be dealt with by the District Collector or Additional Collector, as the case could be. By the said circular, the jurisdiction of the District Collector is sought to be preserved only with relation to the election matters pertaining to the Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samiti/Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat/Gram Panchayat elections. Only matters pertaining to the elections are now to be dealt with by the District Collector under the relevant provisions of law. Other matters, save and except the election matters, would continue to be dealt with by the Additional Collector unless the District Collector specifically takes over such matters within his jurisdiction.
5. Considering the above and upon going through the phraseology of the circular dated 24.04.2017, it appears that under clause 9 of the earlier circular dated 29.03.2012, all matters pertaining to the elections and all disputes in the Gram Panchayats under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, were being dealt with by the District Collector or the Additional Collector, as the case could be. Specific words used in clause 3 of this circular dated 24.04.2017 would indicate that the State Government has resolved under the orders of the State Election Commission vide their letters dated 10.02.2015 and 30.03.2015, that only those subjects mentioned in clause 9, which have been specifically adverted to in paragraph 3, have been removed from the realm of the Additional Collector. As such, the election matters pertaining to the Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samiti/Nagar Panchayat/Nagar Parishad/Gram Panchayat elections are now taken away from the Additional Collector and would be dealt with only by the District Collector.
6. I do not find that the jurisdiction to deal with all disputes under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act has been taken away from the realm of the Additional Collector as it is specifically not mentioned in the circular that all disputes pertaining to the Gram Panchayat would be adjudicated upon only by the Collector. On this count, therefore, the contention of the Petitioner cannot be entertained.
7. Insofar as the contention of the Petitioner that the requisition notice dated 10.02.2017 pro
