Bombay High Court
Nagabai Ganpatrao Fajge vs The Tahsildar And Others on 16 November, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 3641/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 WRIT PETITION NO. 3641 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5209 OF 2016
Smt. Nagabai w/o. Ganpatrao Fajge,
Age 47 years, Occu. Household and Agril,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioner.
Vs.ig
1. The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office Loha,
Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
2. Kacharu s/o. Dhondiba Gore,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agril and Labour,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
3. Yamunabai w/o. Vishwanath Kalhale,
Age 67 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
4. Dagadu s/o. Ganpati Bamanwad,
Age 50 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
5. Kamalbai w/o. Nagorao Hake,
Age 43 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
6. Wanmala w/o. Keshav Torane,
Age 70 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2016 00:46:50 :::
WP No. 3641/2016
2
7. Pradip w/o. Balasaheb Fajge,
Age 38 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
8. Uttam s/o. Narayan Gore,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
9. Kamalbai w/o. Somaji Dhawale,
Age 70 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
10. Gramsevak,
Grampanchayat Karyalay,
Dagadsangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
11. Talathi,
Talathi Sajja Dagad Sangavi,
Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. .....Respondents
Mr. P.S. Anerao, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. B.A. Shinde, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 11 & 12.
Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondents 2 & 5 to 9.
Mr. V.B. Dhage, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 16th November, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
2) The petition is filed to challenge the order made by
the learned Additional Collector, Nanded in Dispute Application
WP No. 3641/2016
No. 106/2015. The proceeding was filed for setting aside the
resolution of No Confidence made against the petitioner, who
was Sarpanch of village Dagadsangavi, Tahsil Loha, District
Nanded. The Collector has dismissed the proceeding by
observing that necessary procedure was followed and even the
meeting was called and held within seven days from the date of
requisition given by the members of Village Panchayat.
3)
The submissions made and the record show that the
village Panchayat consists of nine members. Six members gave
requisition against the present petitioner, who is a lady to
Tahsildar on 7.11.2015. Tahsildar made order to call meeting on
16.11.2015. The meeting was held on 16.11.2015. The meeting
was not attended by the present petitioner. Six members
attended the meeting and the resolution of No Confidence was
passed unanimously.
4) Present proceeding is filed to challenge No
Confidence Motion and also the order made by the learned
Additional Collector on the ground that the meeting was not
called within statutory period of seven days as provided in
section 35 of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The learned
counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the case reported as
WP No. 3641/2016
2002 (4) Bom.C.R. 425 [Ganesh Raghunath Samel Vs
State of Maharashtra and Ors.]. In this case, the Apex Court
has considered and interpreted the aforesaid provision of
Bombay Village Panchayats Act and it is laid down that the
meeting must be conveyed and held within seven days from the
date of requisition.
5) The learned counsel for respondents submitted that
on 7.11.2015 it was working day, but on 13.11.2015 it was not
working day and the office was closed on other dates like
11.11.2015, 12.11.2015, 14.11.2015 and 15.11.2015 and so, the
meeting was called and held on 16.11.2015. The order of
Collector and the submissions show that though there was some
festival like Bhaubij on 13.11.2016, the office was not closed on
that day. The first day i.e. 6.11.2015 on which requisition was
given can be excluded and the period needs to be counted from
7.11.2015. Thus, the last date of the statutory period falls on
13.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 was also working day. Thus, it was
necessary to call meeting on 13.11.2015. The circumstance that
between 7.11.2015 and 13.11.2015, there were holidays and the
office was closed cannot be considered and similarly, the
circumstance that on 14th and 15th November 2015 the office
was closed also cannot be considered. If the Tahsildar has made
WP No. 3641/2016
some mischief and he says that as he was busy on 13.11.2015 in
other work, then appropriate action can be taken against him by
the Disciplinary Authority. In such case, the persons, who want to
move the No Confidence Motion need to be alert and when they
receive the notice, they need to take steps to see that meeting
is held within statutory period. As such step was not taken and
meeting was held on 16.11.2015, the meeting itself was illegal.
It is to be presumed that there was no such meeting and it will
be open to the members to move the resolution by giving the
requisition again.
6) In view of these circumstances, the petition is
allowed. The order made by the learned Additional Collector is
hereby set aside. The Dispute Application filed by the present
petitioner is allowed and the resolution of No Confidence passed
against the present petitioner stands set aside. Civil Application
is disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
