Bombay High Court
Padmavati Ramkrushna Dhockcaule vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 September, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7228 OF 2014
Navnath Gangadhar Dhockcaule,
Age 49 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Khandala, Tal. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Cooptation Department.
2. The Collector,
Ahemednagar.
3. The Tahsildar,
Shrirampur, Tal. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahemednagar.
4. Grampanchayat Khandala.
5. Dinker Jagganath Sadafhal,
Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
6. Bhika Chimaji Kharat,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
7. Ramdas Tatyaba Mhase,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
8. Sangita Vijay Dhockcaule,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agri.,
9. Prabhakar Dhanraj Sabde,
Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,
10. Vandana Bhimraj Vighave,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
11. Suman Gopinath Pawar,
Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:24:55 :::
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
2
12. Sambhaji Shivaji Pawar,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agri.,
13. Sunita Sukhdeo Sodnar,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
14. Vanita Babasaheb Dhockcaule,
Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
15. Shalini Shahaji Pawar,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
16. Padmavati Ramkisan Dhockcaule,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
R.Nos. 5 to 16 all R/o. Khandala,
Tal. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahemednagar. ....Respondents.
Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 16.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7229 OF 2014
Padmavati Ramkrushna Dhockcaule,
Age Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Khandala, Tal. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Cooptation Department.
2. The Collector,
Ahemednagar.
3. The Tahsildar,
Shrirampur, Tal. Shrirampur,
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:24:55 :::
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
3
Dist. Ahemednagar.
4. Grampanchayat Khandala.
5. Dinker Jagganath Sadafhal,
Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
6. Bhika Chimaji Kharat,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
7. Ramdas Tatyaba Mhase,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
8. Sangita Vijay Dhockcaule,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agri.,
9. Prabhakar Dhanraj Sabde,
Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,
10. Vandana Bhimraj Vighave,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
11. Suman Gopinath Pawar,
Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,
12. Sambhaji Shivaji Pawar,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agri.,
13. Sunita Sukhdeo Sodnar,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
14. Vanita Babasaheb Dhockcaule,
Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
15. Shalini Shahaji Pawar,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
16. Navnath Sahaji Dhockcaule,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
R.Nos. 3 to 14 all R/o. Khandala,
Tal. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahemednagar. ....Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:24:55 :::
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
4
Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 16.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 23rd September, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1) The first proceeding is filed by Up-Sarpanch and
second proceeding is filed by Sarpanch of village Khandala,
Tahsil Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. The proceedings are
filed to challenge the decision given in dispute application Nos.
33/2014 and 34/2014, which were pending before the learned
Additional Collector, Ahmednagar. The dispute applications were
filed under section 35 (3)(b) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act,
1958 to challenge the resolutions of no confidence motion
passed against the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. The dispute
applications are rejected by the authority. Both the sides are
heard.
2) The Village Panchayat has 13 members. On
17.7.2014, 11 members approached Tahsildar and gave
requisition for calling meeting of Village Panchayat as they
wanted to move motion of no confidence against Sarpanch and
Up-Sarpanch. Common grounds were mentioned against both of
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
them by 11 members and it was informed that both Sarpanch
and Up-Sarpanch had lost confidence of these members. On
17.7.2014 Tahsildar issued separate notices against Sarpanch
and Up-Sarpanch to inform them about the requisition given
against them and he called meeting on 23.7.2014 at 11.00 a.m.
in Village Panchayat Office. Notices were served on 11 members,
out of 13 members, personally. On 18.7.2014 Talathi pasted the
notices issued against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch on the outer
doors of their houses as they were not available. Panchanama of
this incident was prepared by Talathi in the presence of Village
Officers like Gramsevak, Police Patil and President of Tanta Mukti
Committee. Two other witnesses were also used. Talathi gave
report of service to Tahsildar on 19.7.2014.
3) The requisition meeting was held in the office of
Village Panchayat on 23.7.2014. Out of 13 members, 11
members attended the meeting. Both Sarpanch and Up-
Sarpanch did not turn up for the meeting. First the motion of no
confidence was moved against Sarpanch and there was
discussion on the motion and then it was passed by majority like
10 Vs. 00. In similar way, motion was moved against Up-
Sarpanch of no confidence and it was also passed by similar
majority. Tahsildar declared that the resolutions of no confidence
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
were passed against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch.
4) In dispute filed before the learned Additional
Collector, resolutions were challenged on following grounds :-
(i) The notices issued by Tahsildar were not served
on them and false record of service was prepared.
(ii) Both Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch were available
and members of their family were also available in the
houses and to avoid service on them, false record was
prepared and false panchanama was created of service
by pasting the notices on outer doors of their houses.
(iii) The distance between the houses of Sarpanch
and Up-Sarpanch is around three kilo meters, but single
panchanama was shown to be prepared of the service
by pasting.
5) The learned Additional Collector has considered the
contentions made with regard to service of notice. The record of
service of such notice is considered by the learned Additional
Collector and it is held that it is proper service under Rule 7 of
the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959. In the
present proceedings, copy of application dated 23.7.2014 given
by both the petitioners to Tahsildar came to be produced. This
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
document shows that immediately after the aforesaid meeting in
which no confidence motion was passed, the Sarpanch and Up-
Sarpanch had applied to Gramsevak for getting copy of
resolution, the copy of minutes of the aforesaid meeting.
6) In the present proceedings also, the learned counsel
for petitioners submitted that record of service by pasting the
notice on outer doors of the houses is doubtful in nature. He
submitted that as per the procedure, two separate panchanamas
ought to have been prepared. It is true that only one
panchanama was prepared by serving officer. But due to this
circumstance, the record cannot be held to be suspicious in
nature. There are other circumstances indicating that both
Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch had information about the aforesaid
meeting, but they avoided to turn up. The record is signed by all
the Village Officers and also by independent panch witnesses.
The only contention made against the independent witness is
that they are political opponents of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch.
However, nothing is contended as against aforesaid three Village
Officers, who have also signed on service record.
7) The learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
(AURANGABAD BENCH) [Indubai Vedu Khairnar Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors.], 2013 (6) ALL MR 795
(AURANGABAD BENCH) [Surekha s/o. Eshwar Jadhav Vs.
Nirmala w/o. Madhavrao Jadhav & Ors.] and 2014 (1)
Bom.C.R. 466 (AURANGABAD BENCH) [Vishal Shrikirishna
Hole Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]. In these cases, in
view of the facts of those cases, this Court held that notice was
not properly served, the service was not in accordance with Rule
7 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959. The
facts and circumstances of each and every case are always
different. In the present matters, there is the record which is
discussed above and there are other circumstances which are
sufficient to infer that notices were served as per the procedure
laid down in Rule 7. Further, other circumstances mentioned
show that they were aware of the meeting which was called by
Tahsildar.
8) The learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance
on other case reported as 2013 (3) Mh.L.J. 133 (BOMBAY
HIGH COURT) [Vishnu Ramchandra Patil Vs. Group
Grampanchayat, Kharivli and Ors.]. In this case, it is laid
down that in view of Rule 17 of Bombay Village Panchayat
(Meetings) Rules, 1959 and section 35 of Bombay Village
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
Panchayat Act, moving of no confidence motion is necessary in
such a meeting. There is no dispute over the proposition.
Relevant portion of minutes of meeting is already quoted and it
shows that the motion read, there was discussion and then the
motion was passed by the requisite majority. Thus, there is no
force in the contentions which were made first time in the
present proceedings.
9)
The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance
on the case reported as 1998 (4) ALL MR 479 [Nimba
Rajaram Mali Vs. Collector, Jalgaon & Ors.]. The relevant
observations are at para Nos. 12 and 13 and they are as under :-
"12. In the case of Smt. Annapurnabai Ajabrao
Vs. Annapurnabai Anandrao reported in 1967
Mh.L.J. NOC 36, validity of the No Confidence
Motion passed against the Sarpanch was
challenged on the ground that :
(a) allegations with regard to the alleged
mismanagement were too vague and did not
furnish any particulars.
(b) no evidence was placed before the
meeting to support the resolution;
(c) resolution was passed without sufficient
discussion and in spite of explanation given
by the petitioner and
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
(d) names of the persons voting in favour of
the resolution and their signatures were not
appended to the proceedings.
The Division Bench of this Court, while rejecting
the petitioner's claim, observed as under :-
"Even if it were to be assumed that there was
some technical flaw in the proceedings of the
meeting or in transmission of the results of
the meeting to the Panchayat Samiti, we do
not see how that could entitle the petitioner
to claim to continue as Sarpanch of the Gram
Panchayat. A Gram Panchayat is essentially a
democratic institution which must be run on
democratic principles. When the majority of
the members have clearly expressed that
they do not desire the petitioner to be their
leader and Sarpanch, appropriate attitude of
the petitioner as a person working for
democracy whatever have been to tender her
resignation straightway. At any rate, it does
not behave of democratic spirit to challenge
the decision of the majority who unmistakably
declared their want of confidence in their
erstwhile leader. Democratic principles as has
also sense of self respect should have been
impleaded the petitioner and persons situated
in similar circumstances to graciously submit
to the decision of the majority and to walk out
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
of the Gram Panchayat. Notice raising
frivolous contention and forcing herself on the
democratic institution it does not want her to
hold that position."
13. In a democratic society what is important is
the will of the majority and the elected
representatives must honour the will of the
majority. It is immaterial to analyse and debate on
the reasons behind the will of the majority or the
specific reasons for such will being expressed. The
will of the majority is of paramount importance
and it must be respected by all elected
representatives responsible for the governance of
such democratic institutions. As observed by the
Apex Court in the case of Babubhai (supra),
resolution of No Confidence Motion is different
from Censure Motion and such a resolution cannot
be faulted on the ground that there were no
reasons or reasons were vague and lacked
detailed specifications. Once the resolution of No
Confidence Motion is passed by a clear majority
and in keeping with the requirements of the
concerned statutory provisions, the person against
whom such a resolution is passed, must honour
the will of the majority and make way for the new
election of his successor. Unless it is shown that
while passing such a resolution of No Confidence
Motion, there was flagrant violation of any of
mandatory procedure laid down, such a resolution
WP No. 7228/2014 & Anr.
cannot be interfered with by the Court or statutory
authorities adjudicating such dispute. In the case
at hand, both the authorities below, on perusal of
record before them, have recorded clear findings
that the resolution was passed in keeping with the
requirements of the No Confidence Motion Rules
and there was no breach of any statutory
provisions. These findings do not suffer from any
error, leave alone error apparent, on the face of
the record."
10) In view of the discussion of the facts and
circumstances mentioned above and the position of law
mentioned, this Court holds that it is not possible to interfere in
the decision given by the learned Additional Collector against
both Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch. In the result, both the petitions
stand dismissed. Rule is discharged in both the proceedings.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
