Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
VISHAL SHRIKRISHNA HOLE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS – Respondent
WP 9311/2012
['Salunke V D', 'Talekar S B', '', 'G P FOR R/ 1 TO 3 AND 5', 'R/ 4 SERVED', 'R/ 8 AND 11 SERVED', 'SHOYAB SHAIKH FOR R/ 8 AND 11 ( VP NOT FIELD)', 'SHAIKH SHOYAB']
1
9311-12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.: 9311 OF 2012
Vishal S/o Shrikirishna Hole,
Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
and Sarpanch Village Panchayat
Khamkarwadi, Tq. Washi, Dist.
Osmanabad.
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary Rural
Development Department,
Mantralaya,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
2.
The Additional Collector,
Osmanabad.
3.
The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Washi,
Tq.Washi, Dist. Osmanabad.
4.
Gramsevak,
Gram Panchayat Office,
Khamkarwadi, Tq. Washi,
Dist. Osmanabad.
5.
Talathi,
Talathi Sajja Khamkarwadi/
Terkheda Tq. Washi,
Dist. Osmanabad.
6.
Haribhau S/o Rambhau Sawant,
Age: Adult, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Khamkarwadi, Tq. Washi,
Dist. Osmanabad.
7.
Janardhan S/o Govindrao Lugade,
Age: Adult, Occu;: Agriculture,
R/o Khamkarwadi, Tq. Washi,
Dist. Osmanabad.
8.
Shridhar S/o Vithoba Mane,
Age: Adult, Occup: Agriculture,
R/o Khamkarwadi, Tq. Washi,
Dist. Osmanabad.
2
9311-12
9.
Sakharbai W/o Haribhau Sawant,
Age: Adult, Occup: Agriculture,
R/o Khamkarwadi, Tq. Washi,
Dist. Osmanabad.
10.
Sakharbai W/o Rama Kale,
Age: Adult, Occup: Agriculture,
R/o Khamkarwadi, Tq. Washi,
Dist. Osmanabad.
11.
Vijaymala W/o Shridhar Idage,
Age: Adult, Occup: Agriculture,
R/o Khamkarwadi, Tq. Washi,
Dist. Osmanabad.
...
RESPONDENTS.
***
Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.G.Shelke, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
and 5.
Mr. S. B. Talekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6,
7, 9 and 10.
Mr. Shoyab Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No.8.
***
CORAM:
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
RESERVED ON: 1st OCTOBER, 2013.
PRONOUNCED ON: 8th OCTOBER, 2013.
JUDGMENT:
1.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
By consent of parties
heard
finally.
Petition is directed against the order dated
7th November, 2012 passed by Additional
Collector, Osmanabad declaring that the
resolution dated 12th October, 2012 of no
confidence passed against the petitioner in
the meeting is valid and the Saprach i.e. the
3
9311-12
Petitioner is disqualified to hold the post of
Sarpanch. The petitioner is elected member of
Village Panchayat of Khamkarwadi. He is
elected for a tenure of 2010 to 2015 and he is
holding the post of Sarpanch.
Village
Panchayat of Khamkarwadi constitutes 7 members.
On 8th October, 2012 there was a requisition
demanding meeting for motion of no confidence
against the Sarpanch. On 9th October, 2012
Tahsildar issued notice pursuant to the
requisition informing all the 7 members of the
Village Panchayat that the meeting was
scheduled on 12th October, 2012. Accordingly,
the notices were served on 5 members of the
village Panchayat. As per the case of the
petitioner, it was not served on him and on the
one member of the Panchayat. While arguing it
was submitted that Petitioner restricts his
case to, that there was no proper service of
the notice under the Act on him and he does not
press case of nonservice of notice on the
other member. Thus, the meeting was conducted
on 12th October, 2012 and the 5 members of the
4
9311-12
Village
Panchayat,
who
were
present,
unanimously passed a resolution of no
confidence against the Sarpanch. The said
resolution was challenged by the present
Petitioner by filing a dispute under section 35
(3B) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958
before Additional Collector, Osmanabad, on the
ground that the notice of the meeting was not
served on the petitioner. After considering
the submissions and documentary evidence of
both the parties, the said dispute was
dismissed.
2.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that a notice in respect of meeting
on the point of
