Bombay High Court
Sau. Lilabai W/O. Manohar Lothe vs Collector, Bhandara And Others on 2 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp6097.15-Judgment 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6097 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Sau. Lilabai W/o Manohar Lothe,
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat
Gondumari, Taluka Sakoli, District
Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Collector, Bhandara.
ig 2) Tahsildar,
Sakoli, District Bhandara.
3) Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Gond-Umari, Tahsil Sakoli, District
Bhandara.
4) Sau. Deeplata Pramod Uke,
Age-Major, Member, Gram
Panchayat.
5) Sau. Babita Sailesh Motghare,
Age-Major, Member, Gram
Panchayat.
6) Sau. Pratimala Padmakar Borkar
Age-Major, Member, Gram
Panchayat.
7) Sau. Pournima W/o Bhagwat
Chandekar,
Age-Major, Member, Gram Panchayat.
8) Dudhram Bala Gahane,
Age-Major, Member, Gram
Panchayat.
9) Sidartha Adju Uke,
Age-Major, Member, Gram
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:17 :::
wp6097.15-Judgment 2/7
Panchayat.
10) Dhanu Hanu Gajbhiye,
Age-Major, Member
Gram Panchayat (Disqualified)
Respondent Nos.4 to 10
R/o Gond Umari, Tahsil Sakoli,
District Bhandara.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.D. Kaorde, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Ms Nazia Pathan, counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 10.
Mr.H.D. Dubey, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ig CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J.
DATED : APRIL 02, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
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.
The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of village
Gond-Umari in the year 2012. The respondent Nos.4 to 10-members of
wp6097.15-Judgment 3/7
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.
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 in-as-much 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
wp6097.15-Judgment 4/7
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.
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 3/4 th majority as six members had
wp6097.15-Judgment 5/7
voted against the petitioner.
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 and no objection was raised by the petitioner in
the meeting. It is stated that an objection was raised only after the
meeting was conducted and the motion was passed. It is stated that the
petitioner has not pointed out as to what prejudice is caused to the
petitioner by holding the meeting in the Samaj Mandir which is a
building adjoining the Gram Panchayat office.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears
that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Even if it is held that the respondent
No.10 was disqualified and was not entitled to sit and vote in the
wp6097.15-Judgment 6/7
special meeting, still the 'no-confidence motion' is carried against the
petitioner-woman Sarpanch by 3/4 majority. With the disqualification
of the respondent No.10, the Gram Panchayat would consist of 8
members. Out of 8 members, 6 members have voted against the
petitioner. Thus, the 'no-confidence motion' was carried against the
petitioner by 3/4 majority and, therefore, the fact of disqualification of
the respondent No.10 would not result in setting aside the 'no-
confidence motion' that is passed against the petitioner. The 'no-
confidence motion' also cannot be set aside on the ground that the
special meeting was conducted in the Samaj Mandir. The petitioner
and all other members of the Gram Panchayat, that were entitled to sit
and vote in the meeting, have participated in the special meeting held
in the Samaj Mandir. Neither the petitioner nor any other member had
objected the conduct of the meeting in the Samaj Mandir that is
situated near the Gram Panchaat office and after the resolution was
passed, the petitioner raised the objection. Even otherwise, no
prejudice is pointed out by the petitioner by holding of the meeting in
the Samaj Mandir. In the absence of any prejudice, the 'no-confidence
motion' cannot be set aside, specially when it is passed by 3/4 majority
against the petitioner and a large majority in the Gram Panchayat is
desirous that the petitioner should not continue as the Sarpanch.
Since there is no merit in either of the submissions made
wp6097.15-Judgment 7/7
on behalf of the petitioner, the petition is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
