Bombay High Court
Trimbak Yashwantrao Narwade And ... vs Sangita Maroti Bhutte And Others on 21 April, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-2687.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2687 OF 2016
1. Trimbak s/o Yashwantrao Narwade,
Age 55 years, occup. Agriculture,
2. Janabai w/o Limbraj Tandale,
Age 35 yeas, occup. Household,
3. Ayodhya w/o Balaji Panchal,
Age 45 years, occup. household,
4. Meerabai w/o Karan Irapalle,
Age 35 years, occup. Household,
5. Hasmatbee w/o Mehaboob Shaikh, .. Petitioners
Age 38 years, occup. Household,
All r/o Devangra, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur.
versus
1. Sangita Maroti Bhutte,
Age 38 years, occup. Household,
R/o Devangra, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur,
2. Presiding Officer / Tahsildar,
Chakur, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur
3. The Secretary,
Gram Panchayat, Devangra,
Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur
4. Mohan s/o Sudam Kamble,
Age major, occup. Agril.,
R/o Devangra, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur
5. Tukaram s/o Krushnaji Parve,
Age 74 years, occup. Agril.,
R/o Devangra, Tq. Latur,
Dist. Latur [Proforma Respondent] .. Respondents
---
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:14:30 :::
2 WP-2687.16.doc
Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. R. K. Ashtekar, Advocate for respondent no. 1
Mr. S. N. Kendre, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 2
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the parties by
consent, finally.
2. Writ petition has been moved against order dated 06-01-
2016 passed by Additional Collector, Latur, upon an application by
respondent no. 1 herein in the proceedings with reference to
section 35(3)(B) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayats Act, 1958.
3. No confidence motion had been moved against respondent
no. 1 by petitioner, alleging various grounds and a meeting
pursuant to requisition by members of Gram Panchayat, Devangra ,
had been scheduled on 26-10-2015. Majority had voted in favour of
no confidence.
4. It appears that majority of the members present in the
meeting, had voted and had decided to vote by show of hands. It
appears that only a single member had applied for voting by secret
ballot. According to the learned counsel, such a request had rightly
not been considered by the officer presiding over the meeting and a
resolution had been passed of no confidence against respondent
no.1 herein.
3 WP-2687.16.doc
5. Respondent no. 1 had purportedly questioned correctness,
legality and validity of said meeting and resolutions on various
grounds, inter alia, contending that once a requisition had been
made to have voting by secret ballot papers, it was incumbent and
imperative to have voting accordingly, however, while passing no
confidence motion, provisions of law have not been adhered to.
Further, among other grounds, a disqualified member having been
been allowed to participate in the meeting, it vitiates entire
proceedings.
6. It is being submitted on behalf of respondent no. 1 that the
Collector had rightly observed that the meeting got vitiated for the
reason of non compliance of requirement of voting by secret ballot
upon a requisition in writing by a member.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 also submits that a
decision which has been relied on by him before the Collector, is a
proper decision and which may hold the field in the present case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a
decision of division bench of this court in the case of Kishor s/o
Ramchandra phalak vs. Vilas s/o Damodar mahajan and others, reported in 1997
(4) Bom.C.R. 439 wherein, according to him, a distinction has been
made in respect of application of rules while it comes to election of
Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch and while it comes to passing no
confidence motion against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. He
4 WP-2687.16.doc
contends that the election rules may hold the field when it comes to
election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, however, those cannot be
said to be available with same rigour while passing no confidence
motion against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. Learned counsel
submits that in the absence of specific rules, general rules will have
to be followed and ordinarily, voting by expression of words or show
of hands would have to take place. In the present case, majority
decision was to cast vote by show of hands and in such a case,
impugned order is not sustainable. He
ig contends that impugned
order falls short of reflection of mind upon other considerations
which were required while rendering decision in the matter.
9. Having regard to the observations as are appearing in the
case case cited by learned counsel for petitioner, there appears to
be considerable force in the contentions on behalf of petitioner. All
the facts and aspects involved in the matter do not appear to have
been addressed to and applied mind to in the proceedings before
the Additional Collector.
10. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the matter
deserves to be heard afresh, letting the parties opportunity to
address themselves on various aspects involved in the matter for
decision on validity and legality of no confidence motion against
respondent no. 1.
5 WP-2687.16.doc
11. Impugned order dated 06-01-2016 passed by Additional
Collector, Latur, upon the application by respondent no. 1 herein is
set aside. The matter stands remanded to the Additional Collector
for re-decision as aforesaid. As far as positions as are occupied by
the members are concerned, in respect of the same status-quo be
maintained till disposal of proceedings before the Additional
Collector. It is further expected that decision would be reached
sooner, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of writ of this order.
12. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. Writ petition stands
disposed of.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,
JUDGE
pnd
