Bombay High Court
Revnath S/O Sukhdeo Kusram And Ors vs The Collector, Gadchiroli on 12 August, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp6582.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.6582 of 2015
1. Revnath son of Sukhdeo Kusram,
aged about 24 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of at Kanohli,
Post Murkhala,
Tq. Chamorshi,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
2. Sau. Manisha wife of Harish
Dudhbaware,
aged about 24 years,
occupation - Housewife,
resident of at Post Sonapur,
Tq. Chamorshi,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
3. Sau. Ranjana wife of Nilkanth
Kumre,
aged about 35 years,
occupation - Housewife,
resident of at Post Ganpur,
Tq. Chamorshi,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
4. Manmohan son of Ramayya Bandawar,
aged about 54 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of at Kishthapur,
Post - Chitranjanpur,
Tq. Chamorshi,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
5. Sau. Minakshi wife of Mangal
Deogade,
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2016 23:57:43 :::
wp6582.15
2
aged about 41 years,
occupation - Household,
resident of at Post Aashti,
Tq. Chamorshi,
Distt. Gadchiroli. ..... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The Collector,
Gadchiroli.
2.
Shri Keshav son of Masaji
Bhandekar,
aged about 46 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of at Post -
Walsara,
Tq. Chamorshi,
Distt. Gadchiroli. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. A. S. Kilor, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1.
Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Adv., for respondent no.2.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date on which arguments
were concluded : 12th July, 2016
Date on which judgment
is pronounced : 12th August, 2016
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2016 23:57:43 :::
wp6582.15
3
J U D G M E N T:
01. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned counsel for
the parties have been heard at length by issuing Rule and making the
same returnable forthwith.
02.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9th
November, 2015 passed by the Collector, Gadchiroli, thereby allowing
the Disqualification Petition filed by the respondent no.2 and declaring
the petitioners to have incurred disqualification under the provisions of
Section 3 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members
Disqualification Act, 1987.
03. The facts relevant for adjudication of the Writ Petition are
that the petitioners were elected as members of Panchayat Samiti,
Chamorshi. In the meeting of the elected members, the petitioner
no.1 was elected as the Group Leader. All the petitioners belonged to
the same political party. A motion of no confidence came to be moved
against the respondent no.2 who was the Vice-chairman of the
Panchayat Samiti. In that regard, the Collector convened a special
meeting of the Panchayat Samiti by issuing notice dated 27th May,
wp6582.15
2015, which special meeting was to be held on 10th June, 2015. On
2nd June, 2015, the District President of the political party convened a
meeting of members of the political party, in which the District
President issued a whip to vote against the motion of no confidence
that was moved against the respondent no.2. This whip was published
in three local newspapers. In the special meeting held on 10th June,
disobeying the whip.
2015, the petitioners voted in favour of the motion of no confidence by
On this basis, the respondent no.2 filed the
Disqualification Petition under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local
Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987.
04. In the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners, a stand was
taken that the District President had no authority, whatsoever, to issue
the whip, but it was the Group Leader - petitioner no.1 who had the
authority to issue the whip. According to them, the whip issued on
10th June, 2015 was not legal. It was denied that the petitioners were
entitled to be held disqualified for disobedience of such whip.
The respondent no.2 examined himself by filing his affidavit
on record. He was, however, not cross-examined by the petitioners.
The respondent no.2 also examined the District President of the
political party by filing his affidavit. He too was not cross-examined by
the petitioners. By the impugned order, the Collector held that the
wp6582.15
District President had the authority to issue the whip in question. As
the same had been disobeyed by the petitioners, they were liable to be
held disqualified. On that basis, the petition for disqualification was
allowed and the petitioners were held disqualified under the provisions
of Section 3 (1) (b) of the said Act.
05.
Shri Kilor, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted
that the petitioners had been wrongly disqualified by passing the
impugned order. According to him, there was no authority with the
District President to issue any whip in the matter. He submitted that
the petitioners had come up with a specific case that the meeting
dated 2nd June, 2015 of the political party had never been held and,
therefore, the alleged resolution passed therein could not have been
relied upon. The only authorization was with the petitioner no.1 being
the Group Leader. It was then submitted that if, as per the minutes of
the meeting held on 2nd June, 2015, the petitioners were also present,
then there was no need, whatsoever, to issue any further whip so as to
oppose the motion of no confidence. The Collector, without verifying
the authenticity of the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd June, 2015,
proceeded to accept the said resolution, and, on that basis, held
against the petitioners. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Division Bench in Gajanan Subhashrao
wp6582.15
Suryawanshi Vs. Sharad Namdeo Pawar & others [ 2013 (5) ALL
MR 733] in support of his submissions. He, therefore, submitted that
the petitioners had been wrongly disqualified and the impugned order
was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
06. Shri Khajanchi, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2,
supported the impugned order. According to him, the petitioners were
present in the meeting held on 2nd June, 2015, which fact was evident
from their signatures in the minutes of said meeting. Though a stand
was taken by the petitioners in their reply that such meeting was never
held, the same was not substantiated, in any manner, whatsoever.
Neither were the witnesses examined by the petitioners and cross-
examined by the respondent no.2, nor was any evidence led by the
petitioners. On that basis, the affidavits filed on behalf of the
respondent no.2 were rightly accepted by the Collector. He referred to
the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners to the Disqualification
Petition wherein a stand was taken that Shri Kisan Nagdeve was the
District Chief of the political party. The meeting dated 2nd June, 2015
was held under the chairmanship of the very same District President.
As regards issuance of a whip, it was submitted that due publicity was
given to the same by having it published in three local newspapers
prior to four days of the special meeting. Relying upon the Judgment
wp6582.15
of the Division Bench in Gajanan Subhashrao Suryawanshi [Supra] as
well as the decision in Shilpa Subhash Dhundur Vs. Ratnagiri
Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri, & others [1999 (1) Mh. L.J. 524] and the
judgment of learned Single Judge in Sheshrao Trimbakrao Patil &
others Vs. Trimbakrao Shrirangrao Bhise & others [2012 (2) Mh.
L. J. 196], it was urged that the petitioners had clearly incurred
disqualification under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (b) of the said Act.
He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order need not call for any
interference.
Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the
respondent no.1, also supported the impugned order.
07. I have heard respective counsel at length and perused the
documents placed on record.
08. Perusal of the material on record reveals that though in the
reply filed to the Disqualification Petition, a specific stand disputing the
convening of meeting on 2nd June, 2015 was taken, the same was not
substantiated, in any manner, whatsoever. On behalf of the respondent
no.2, the affidavits of the respondent no.2 as well as the affidavit of the
District President of the political party, Shri Kisan Nagdeve, were
placed on record. These witnesses were not cross-examined. Further,
wp6582.15
no evidence was led by the petitioners to justify the stand taken by
them in the reply. In absence of any evidence to support the stand
that no meeting was held on 2nd June, 2015, said plea of the
petitioners cannot be accepted. The evidence led on behalf of the
respondent no.2 was not controverted and the proceedings were
decided on that basis.
09.
Perusal of the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd June,
2015 indicates presence of the District President, Shri Kisan Nagdeve,
and Resolution No.1 passed therein. As per said resolution, the motion
of no confidence against the respondent no.2 was to be opposed. The
signatures of the petitioners acknowledging their presence in the said
meeting can also be seen. In the absence of any challenge to this
document and the proceedings held on 2nd June, 2015, the contents
thereof would have to be accepted. The whip was then served by
Registered Post on the petitioners which fact was stated on oath by the
respondent no.2. In addition thereto, the whip based on Resolution
No.1 was published in four local newspapers on 6th June, 2015. This
was four days prior to holding of the special meeting. In this
background, therefore, the conclusion recorded by the Collector that
the petitioners, by voting in favour of the no confidence motion, had
disobeyed the whip, thereby incurring disqualification under Section 3
wp6582.15
(1) (b) of the said Act, cannot be faulted.
10. The petitioners in their reply had taken a specific stand that
Shri Kisan Nagdeve was the District Chief of the political party. If in his
presence the resolution dated 2nd June, 2015 came to be passed, and
a whip in that regard came to be issued on 3rd June, 2015, the same in
absence of any counter-evidence would have to be treated as binding
on the members of the political party. The reliance placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners on the observations made by the
Division Bench in paragraphs 39, 46 and 47 of its Judgment in Gajanan
S. Suryawanshi [supra] cannot come to the aid of the petitioners in the
aforesaid facts. The stand taken by the petitioners in their reply as
justification for not following the whip has not been substantiated. The
observations of learned Single Judge in Sheshrao Trimbakrao Patil &
others [supra] that members of the political party cannot question the
authority of the observer deputed by the political party, support the
contention raised on behalf of the respondent no.2 as regards the
authority of the District President. Similarly, the observations in para 9
of the Judgment of the Division Bench in Shilpa Subhash Dhundur
[supra] support the stand taken by the respondent no.2, that on the
basis of the material placed on record, the conclusion drawn by the
Collector for holding the petitioners disqualified does not deserve to
wp6582.15
be interfered with.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the
Writ Petition so as to warrant interference in extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged
with no order as to costs.
12.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
continuation of the interim order dated 07th December, 2015 for a
period of four weeks. This request is opposed by the learned counsel
for the respondent no.2.
13. As the interim order is operating since 07th December,
2015, the same is continued for a period of four weeks from today.
It shall cease to operate automatically thereafter.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct
wp6582.15
copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 12th Aug., 2016
Pvt. Secretary.
ig -0-0-0-0-
